Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011
http://www.archive.org/details/worksofmostrever07shar
THE
O R K S
Of the Moll Reverend
Dr. JOHN SHARP,
LATE
Lord Archbifhop ofTORK.
VOL. VII. •ONTAINING,
Sermons againft Poperv,
PREACHED
In the Reign of King JAMES II.
And other Papers wrote in the
POPISH CONTROVERSY.
a——— —in i»i i ii ii i« ihiimi «mi ■ ■■■ -jgraaaa— i — i iiiuu. ■ ■!!■ gs
The THIRD EDITION.
LONDON:
Printed for J. and P. Knapton, T. and T. Lokcmak^
C. Hitch and L. Hawes, A. Mjllar, and J, and
]., RlVINGTON. M,DCC4L1V»
A 0 A MS
T G T H E
R E A D E
[PrefixM to the Firft Edition of Vol. VII.]
N the Preface to the two Volumes
of Arcbbijhop Sharp'* Works,
which were lately printed, men-
tion is made oj a fmall Referve of Dif-
courfes in the Popifh Controverfy which
might poffibly, fome time or other, be
publifhed with other of his Papers relating
to that Controverfy.
When thai Preface was wrote, the Edi-
tor had not determined with himfelf, whether
this Collection Jhould ever come abroad or no.
Mitch lefs had he any Apprehenfions that he
Jhould, in jo Jhort a Time, commit it to the
Prefs. For he looked upon that Dijpute as
out of Vogue, and little attended to 5 and
alfo
iv To the Reader.
dlfo conftdered) that the Writings of the Pro-
iejlant Divines in the Reigns of King
Charles, and King James II. were very nu-
merous as well as excellent : and therejore
that thefe Difcourfes (thoy properly enough
a Part of the Popifh Controverfy) would
feem Juperfiuous and unfeafonable. A7id
under thefe Reafons he was difpofed to ac-
quiefce^ had not the late Attempts, of the
Roman Catholics in and about London,
given Occafion to revive the neglected Dif-
pute> and to put Men upon a Review of the
Subjects in Debate between the Church of
England, and the Church of Rome. This
he thought a feafonable funtlure for bring-
ing to light the following Treat ifes, which
have been fuppreffed above fifty Tears,
and perhaps might always have continued
f°> if fome fucb Reafon as this had not ac-
cidentally offered itfelf to ufoer them into
the World.
They are all, or mo ft of * them ', de/ignedly
calculated for the Ufe of the unlearned Pro-
iejlant, The Author of them had the Care
of
To the Reader. v
of one of the largeft Parifjes in London,
during the whole Time the late Popifh Con-
troverfy was on Foot. He was perfeSlly
well acquainted with the Subtilties of the
Popiih Divines, and knew by abundant Ex-
perience among his own Pari/hioners, what
were the principal Difficulties that the in-
ferior Sort laboured under > from the f alia*
cious and infidious Perfuafons and Inflnua-
tions of thofe who Jlrove to pervert them.
What he wrote therefore^ and is now pub-
lifoedy was purpofely contrived as a prefent
Antidote to the Mifchiefs attempted among
his Flock. For which Reafon he entered
as little as pojjible upon the learned or hijlo^
rical Part of the Controverfy (as will be
obfervedy though he was very capable of
difcharging that Part of it with Succefs)
but confined himfelf chiefly to thofe Points
which were more im?nediately necejfary to
guard the Weak from the Sophiflry of the
Jefuits, and to relieve and deliver the Un-
wary7 who were already entangled in their
Snares*
With
y! To the Reader.
With this View he hath formed his Argu-
ments fo plain, and made his Chain of Rea-
joning upon themfo natural and fo familiar \
that they appear to be adapted to the Tafte
as well as the Capacities of ordinary Chri-
stians. Something there is Hkewife to the
Tafte of the Party he cppofes ;fuch of them
at leaji as have any Tafle of Beauty and
'Excellence in writing upon controverted
Points i viz. The Calmnejs and Temper
therewith he engages them r and the fpecial
Care he always takes, never to calumniate
or mifreprefent them. He was wont to fay
himfelf That in his Sermons againft the
Papifts he had always dealt honeftly and
fairly with them, charging them with no-
thing but what their Church openly
avowed in her Creed, and Councils, and
public Offices. Which Candour of Tem-
per and Equity of Conduct, in any Contro-
verfyy tho' it be not always the readiefl
Means of working upon the Vulgar r yet
sannct fail of having a great Influence
upon allferivus and well- meaning People.
He
To the Reader. vii
He was often prejfed by his Friends to
print thefe Difcourfes himfelf. But he de-
clined it. When he was /elicited to do fo
about the Time of the Revolution, or fbon
after it, he gave for an Anfwer, that the
Danger was then over, and the Defign of
them was fuperceded \ and that to publiih
them at that Time would only look like
making his Court.
And it doth not appear that at any Time
afterwards he regarded them, or meddled
with them,jurther than to correft and tran-
scribe one or two of them which he preached
at York, in order to check fame At-
tempts that the popiflo Prie/is were JujpecJed
and reported to have made in that Neigh-
bourhood. One of thefe was that remark-
able Sermon which upon the firjt Delivery
vf it in his PariJJj Church at London, in
1686, had drawn upon him the Difplea-
Jure of King James and his Court , and had
given Occafion to the Order that was fent
to Dr. Compton, then Bi/hop of London,
4 te
viii To the Reader,
to fufpend him, which brought on the Trou-
bles of that Prelate from the ecclefiaftical
Com mi (lion. But whereas in his Tran-
fcript of this Difcourfe, upon the Revifal
cf it, that Paflage which was fuppofed to
be mofl offenfive ajid obnoxious,, was e?i-
tirely left out, (as being a particular An-
fwer to a certain Argument that had been
flip d into his Hand in St. Giles's Church,
as he fuppofed, by way of Challenge, and
which therefore could not pertinently be re-
peated when he preached the fame Sermon,
above twenty Tears after, at his own Ca<»
ihedral) therefore recourfe was had for that
Paffage to the firjl or original Copy. And
whereas the other Differences between the
two Copies did not appear to be material^
but to confift rather in CorreBion of E&-
preffions and Style, than of the Matter or
Arguments, it was judged mofl advifable
to follow the firft Copy altogether in this
"Edition y *}• both for the Satisfaction of
the
4- germ. VI. A Difcuffion ofthe£h<ejV.on which the Roman
Catholics mojt infiji uponnvith the ?rtiejiantsi viz. In vxhich
of the different Conmunions in Chnftendom the only true Church
cfChriji is to he found? With a Refutation of a ctrtain Fo'^ifi
Argument handed about in 'MJS, Anna 1686.
To the Reader. ix
the Reader j whcfe Curiofity would be better
gratified with a true and faithful Repre-
fentation of the very fame Sermon that pro-
duced the Effects abovementioned ; and alfo
to vindicate the Author of it, from the un-
juft Reflections of Father Orleans upon it,
who ktiowing nothing of the Contents of it,
charged it arbitrarily and upon hear fay y
and like wife (for that was another Confe-
deration worth regarding) to make it of
a Piece with all the reft, which are now
publijhed from thefrft Hand, and without
Emendation of any kind, fnce the Time
they were preached in St. Giles's Pulpit.
With this only Exception, that what were
two Sermons upon 2 Pet. iii. 16. appear
now only as one. And whereas the Sermon
upon Auricular Confeilion was connected
<with others upon the fame Text, which were
lately printed in the fifth Volume under the
Title ^Confeilion of Sins neceflary to Re-
pentance, P. 1 4 j. it became unavoidable
both there and here to omit as much asferved
only to flew the Connexion between them,
<ind
x To the Reader,
and which therefore could have no Place in
their prefent State of Separation*
Thefe were Liberties which Dr. Barker
owns he ?nade no Scruple of taking with
the Pofthurnous Sermons of Arch-Bifhop
Tillotfon, whofe Autho?~ity he alfo pleads
for doi?ig fo. The Editor hopes he may be
indulged in the fame Liberty , having never
tifed it but when he judged it neceffary^
and even then without altering the Senfe,
and with as little Change to the Words as
fofjible.
And now the Header has all before him
that is r e qui fit e for his Information con-
cerning thefe Sermons. If hejl:all not find
them fo finijhed and correct as thofe already
printed^ he will know where to afcribe the
Defedi. An Imputation of Rajhnefs in
the Publijher of them, grounded on this
Reafon only, will not much affeSl him, pro-
vided his Jole Aim in the Publication be
anjwered, which is the prejervingfome Peo-
fle\ into whofe Hands they may fall, from
the
To the Reader. xi
the Errors of Popery, and efiablijhing them
more firmly in the Communion of the
Church of England. Once they contri-
buted very much to this good End. And
it is not unreafonable to expeff they may do
Jo again. And as it is certain that Dr,
Sharp owed to them much of his Reputa-
tion in the laft Age, Jo it is prefumed they
may be received with fome degree of Ap~
probation in the prefent ; at leafl it is hoped,
that what tended fo eminently to advance
his Credit then, will not turn to the Dif
advantage of his Memory now. The clofing
the Collection of his Works with his earliefi
Performances, is not unprecedented, nei-
ther can it feem improper to conclude his
Remains with thofe Pieces which firjlferved
to raife his Character in the World,
As concerning the Papers fubjoined in
the Appendix, their Relation to the SubjeB
of the Sermons to which they are annexed
mujl fpeak their Propriety. The firjl is
a Reply to a Letter from a Gentlewoman
tvho had lately fallen into the Hands of
Dr,
io me Keader-o
r Grpfi a Jefuit, Author of the Con-
terr .ns of the Virgin, and of fome
, fh Books,) Mrs, KingefmiU'j Let-
ter is printed from the Original, and the
Anfwer from a Copy of it* of Di\ Sharp'*
own writing; as ail the other Papers that
follow , are like wife found under his own
Hand. They may have their life -y at leaji
as there are but few of them, the Pub*
lication of them at this Time will defervt
no Cenfure,
co m
CON TENTS
O F T H E
Seventh Volume.
SERMON I. Page i.
FAITH and reafon reconcil'd : Or, nothing to
be believed in religion but what it may be prov-
ed from principles of reafon, that it ought to be be-
lieved.
I Pet. iii. Part of the 15th verfe.— -Be ready ahvays to
give an anfwer to every man that ajketh you a reafon
of the hope that is in you.
SERM, II. p. 19.
Every man to judge for himfelf in things necefTary to
falvation. The different ways prescribed by the
Roman-catholics, and the proteftants, for the com-
ing to the true faith, compared.
The fecond fermon upon the fame text.
I Pet. iii. 15.——^ ready always to give an anfiuer
to every man that afketh you a reafon of the hope thai
is in you.
SERM. III. p. 32.
Concerning the infallibility of the church. Which be-
ing admitted in the fenfe of the Roman-catholics,
would not anfwer the ends they propofe to ferve by it.
The third fermon upon the fame text.
I Pet. iii. 15. — Be ready always to give an anfwer
to every ?nan^ that afketh you a reafon of the hope that
is in you*
SERM. IV. p. 50.
That the fcriptures may be underftood in all necefTary
points by private perfons, with ordinary helps, wlth-
Vol.VIL b out
xiv CONTENTS.
out an infallible interpreter of their fenfe ; and
therefore not to be denied to the common people.
2 Pet. iii. 16. — In ivhicb are form things hard to be
under/lood; which they that are unlearned and un-
ftable wrejl, as they do alfo the other fcripiures, unto
their own deflruclion.
S E P. M. V. p. 78.
The number of the facraments afcertained. Of the
church. The only fcripture notion of it. Wherein
confifts the unity of the catholic church. Reflec-
tions thereupon.
I Cor. xii. 13. — For by one fpirit we are all baptifed
into one body, zvh ether we be fetvs or Gentiles, whe-
ther we be bond or free, and have been all made to
drink into one fpirit.
SERM. VI. p. 94.
A difcuffion of the queftion which the Roman-catho-
lics, much infifr. upon with the proteftants, viz. In
which of the different communions in Chriflendom,
the only true church of Chriftis to be found ?
With a refutation of a certain popifh argument hand-
ed about in M. S. in 1686.
•.The fecond fermon upon the fame text.
I Cor. xii. 13. — For by one fpirit we are all baptifed.
into one body, whether iue be ferns or Gentiles, whe-
ther we be Bond or free, and have been all made to
drink into one fpirit.
SERM. VII. p.. 113.
The popifh and proteftant doctrines concerning cos-
feffing, explained and compared. And the popifh
doctrine of auricular confeffion, proved not to be
the doctrine of fcripture and the antient church*
Pro v. xxviii. 13 « He that covereth his fins Jh all not
profper* But whofo confeffeth them, and forfakeih
them, Jhall find mercy.
SERM.
CONTENTS. %w
SER M. VIII. p. 134.
Againft the doctrines of the church of Rome, con-
cerning fatisfacliion, and purgatory.
The fecond fermon upon the fame text.
Prov. xxviii. 13. He that cover eth hh fins Jh all
not profper. But whofo confejfeth them, and for ■-
Jakeih them, Jhall find mercy.
SERM-. IX. p. 151.
Againft. other corruptions and innovations in the po-
pifh doctrine concerning repentance.
The third fermon upon the fame text.
Prov. xxviii. 13. He that covereth his fins Jhall
not profper. Bui whofo confefjeth them, and for-
fakeih them, Jhall find mercy \
S E R M. X. p. 166.
Abufes and corruptions of the church of Rome, in
the facrament of the Lord's fupper. Firft, in their
private mafles, or prieft's receiving alone. Second-
ly, in their denial of the cup to the laity.
I Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25. For I have received of the
Lord that which I alfo deliver d to you, that the Lord'
fefus, the fame night in which he vjas betrayed, tqoL
bread: ;^P
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and faid,
take, eat : this is my body, which is broken for you :■
this do in remembrance of me,
Jlfter the fame manner alfo he took the cup, when he had
fupped, faying, This cup is the New- tejiament in my
blood : This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remem*
bra nee of me.
SER M. XL p. 188.
Concerning the faerifice of the Mafs.
The fecond fermon upon the fame text, viz, I Cor,
xi. 23, 24, 25,
SERE
xvi CONTENT S.
SERM. XII. p. 2c6.
Concerning Tranfubftantiation.-
The third fermon upon the fame text, viz, I Cor*
xi. 23, 24, 25.
SERM, XIII. p. 227.
The ufual plea or apology for Tranfubftantiation^
anfwer'd.
The fourth fermon upon the fame text, viz, 1 Cor.
xi. 23,. 24, 25.
SERM. XIV. p. 245.
Concerning the adoration of the Hoft.
The fifth fermon upon the fame text, viz. 1 Cor.
xi. 23, 24, 25.
SERM, XV. p. 266.
The fixth chapter of St. John doth not favour the
popifh doctrine of Tranfubftantiation : And the fenfe
of the church of England, as to the real prefence
in the Eucharift.
John vi. 53.- — Then fefus faith unto them, verify,
I fay unto you, except ye eat the fiejh of the fon of
man, and drink his blood \ ye have no life in you,
APPENDIX.
Mrs, KingesmilPs letter, ps 287
Anfiver to the faid letter % ibid*
Anfwer to fome quefiions propofed by a Roman- catholic*,
300
Anfwer to a popijh paper, Sic, 317
Advice to proteflants of ordinary capacities, &c. 324
Short argument againft the doclrine of infallibility, he,
329
S E R M,
SER]V
Faith and reafon reconciled : Or, nothing
to he believed in religion but what it
may be proved from principles of rea-
fon, that it ought to be believed.
i Pet. lit. part of the 15th Verfe.
— Be ready always to give tin anfwtr to every
man thai ajketb you a reafon of the hope that
is in you.
HE hope that is here laid to be in chrl-
flians, and of whicrTthey are to be ready
to give an account, is without doubt no-
thing elfe but that faith, or that do&rine,
or that religion which the chriftians do profefs, and
upon which their hope of another life is grounded*
In this figurative fenfe is the word ufed in other places
of fcripture, particularlyin the 26th of Afts^ ver. vi.
where the hope for which St. Paul is accufed of the
Jews, is plainly the chriftian do&rine, and particularly
Vol, VII. B that
2 - Faith and Reafon ,
that part of it which concerned the refurreclion of the
dead.
This then is the plain meaning of the precept in
my text ; that all chriftians mould fo far inquire into
the grounds of that religion which they profefs, and
upon which they bottom their hopes, as to be ready
and prepared at any time (when they are called upon
to do it) to give a reafonable account of it ; fuch an
account as may fatisfv any unprejudiced mind that they
act like rational men in believing, and profeifing as
they do. Be ready always to give an anfiver to every-
man that ajketh you a reafon of the hope that is in you ;
that is, be prepared and instructed at all times to give
a fatisfactory account of your faith and religion to all
fuch as mall at any time call in queflion the reafon-
ablenefs of it.
This being the (mfc of the text, two points very
fiecefary in thefe times *, we may obferve from it;
Firft of all, that faith and reafon are not inconfiftent
one with another, but may well ftand together. What-
ever we are obliged to believe in matters of religion,
we are by this precept obliged to be able to give a rea-
fon for ; or to give an account of the reafonabienefs
of that belief. And therefore certainly we are not
obliged to believe any thing that is unreafonable, or
that we. cannot give a reafon for our believing it.
The fecond point to be obferved from hence is, that
it is not enough that our faith, or hope, or religion
be reafonable in itfelf, but it is the duty of every pro-
feiTor of that faith fo to Fatisfy himfelf of the reafon-
abienefs of it, as to be able to anfiver them thai afk a
reafon for it. And therefore every man not only may
but ought to enquire into his religion, and not fo to
rely
* Preached in 1^87.
reconciled in Religion. g
rely on the authority arid judgment of other men, as
to fwallow, without examination, every thing that
they propofe to him.
Thefe two points are plainly contained in the text,
and accordingly I (hall make them the heads of my
difcourfe upon it.
I. The nrft point is this ; that reafon and faith are
not inconfiftent. Or this ; the religion we profefs is
no unreafonable thing. On the contrary in all the
-parts of it, it is fuch as recommends itfelf to the rea-
fon of mankind ; in all the parts of it, it is fuch as
we may be able to give a reafon for.
The not attending to this point hath done much
mifchief to religion ; for it hath been the occafion that
many abfurd doctrines have been introduced into it,
which perchance if this proportion had beenconfidered,
would never have found entertainment in the World.
They have done no kindnefs at all to our religion, but
rather a great deal of diflervice to it, who have made
faith and reafon two things oppofite one to the other ;
maintaining this abfurd pofition, that our reafon was
fo much of a different nature from our faith, that it
ought never to be cqnfulted, much lefs to be heard
when faith was concerned : Nay, any thing that was
propofed to us as a matter of faith, was fo much the
more to be believed, becaufe it was contrary to our
reafon. And if we can once attain to that pitch of
virtue, 2s ftrongly to believe things impoilible in hu-
man reafon, our faith was therein much the more glo-
rious, and mould be much better rewarded.
This notion may indeed do great fervice to the
caufe of the church of Rome^ but how it will ferve
any purpofes of the gofpel of Chilli no confidering
man will be able to fee.
B 2 My
4 Faith and Reafon
My defign at this time is to confute and expofe this
abfurd pofition, and to mew the necefTary dependance
that faith hath upon reafon : but withal, the great im-
provement that reafon receives from faith. To fhew that
they are not inconfiftent things , but have an entire agree-
ment one with another: Nay, fo clofely are they linked,
that if we reject either one or the other, or advance
one to the prejudice of the other, we cannot avoid the
running into dangerous errors and inconveniencies.
The proportion we have before us is this : That rea-
fon and faith are not contraditiious things ; or this ; that
the religion ivhich is of God, and tuhich it is our duty to
believe, doth not in any one part or article of it do violeme
to our reafon.
For the making out this, I lay down thefe following
proportions :
I. Firft of all, that nothing that is propofed to us to
be believed as a matter of faith, or an article of re-
ligion, is further to be entertained by us than we have
a reafon to convince us of the truth of it.
2. Secondly, That we have no other way to judge,
or to be convinced of the truth of any matter of faith,
or article of our religion, but the agreeablenefs of it
with the principles of our natural reafon.
3. Thirdly, Whatever therefore is plainly and ap-
parently repugnant to, and inconfiftent with the princi-
ples of natural reafon, cannot be true; and there-
fore ought not to be believed by us as an article of re-
ligion or a matter of faith.
4„ Fourthly, That, notwithstanding, there may be
many things in religion highly reafonabie to be believed,
which vet natural reafon could not difcover, nor after ,
they are difcovered can it fully comprehend -s there may I
be reafon enough to convince us of the truth of them, •
though*.-
reconciled in Religion* 5
though we have not our reafon fo perfect as to be able
to fee perfectly through them, or to anfwerall the dif-
ficulties that may be raifed againft them.
The clearing thefe four propofitions will not only
fully explain and prove our main point, but alfo obvi-
ate all the difficulties and objections that are ufually
raifed in this controverfy. I fhali therefore fpeak to
them in order.
1. The firft proportion is this 5 That nothing that is
propofed to us to be believed as a matter of faith, or an
article of religion, is further to be entertained by us,
than we have reafon given us for the truth of it.
This, I think, is {o univerfally acknowledged by
all mankind, of what perfuafion or religion foever
they be, that it would be a needlefs thing to attempt
the proof of it. There is no man in the world ever>
endeavoured to draw another man to his own opinion
but he would offer him reafons why he fhould embrace
that opinion, rather than the contrary. And there is
no man ever took up any opinion or perfuafion, either
in religion or in other things, but he either had reafon,
or thought he had reafon to incline and determine him
to it. A man cannot believe as he pleafeth. How
defirous foever he may be, that this or the other thing
fhould be true, ye he cannot bring his mind to affent to
it, unlefs he have fome reafon, or fomething that looks
like a reafon, that inclines him to it. Whatever power
the will of man hath to determine itfelf, yet it is cer-
tain the understanding mufl always go according to
the evidence that is given in to%& It implies a contra-
diction, that a man fhould befieve-a proportion, any
further than he is convinced of the truth of it. And
how can he be convinced of the truth of it, further
than he is fatisfied that there are folid and ftrong reafons
B 3 to
€ Faith and Reafon
to perfuade him unto it ? But to fpeak more words upon
this, is to add light to the fun.
2. I therefore proceed. The next proportion we
lay down is this, that we have no other meafure to judge
of the truth of any religion, than the agreeablenefs- of
it with the principles of our natural reafon.
For the proof of this, if it need any, the formes
propofition hath laid a fufEcient foundation. We ought
not, nay we cannot believe any thing further than there
is reafon given us for the truth of it. When there-
fore any thing is propofed to our belief, it is certain we
mud examine whether there be reafon fufficient to
perfuade us to believe it. Now how can we examine
this otherwife than by comparing the thing in queftion
with fome rules or principles of our own minds, by
which we ufe to fearch out the truth or falmood of
things ? If the point recommended to our belief be
agreeable to them, we judge it true -, if otherwife,
we are to conclude it falfe. This is the way of pro-
ceeding of all mankind, when they deliberate concern-
ing a propofition, whether it be true or falfe.
Well then, fome fixed certain rules and principles
. we muft have in ourfelves with which we are to com-
pare, and by which we are to judge of the truth or
falfhood of things recommended to us. Now the only
remaining queftion is, what thofe rules and principles
are ? But indeed it is no queftion at all; for what other
can be afligned befides our natural reafon ? That is to
izyi our underftandings acting according to thofe no-
tions that are either connatural with it, or collected
from our fenfes. Thefe are the principles by which
we are to judge of all things in the wTorld, that are
not felf-evident, that is to fay, that need any proof
to recommend them to our belief, and the comparing
things
reconciled in Religion. 7
things with thefe principles, and making conclufions
from fuch comparifons, is that which we call reafon.
Now it is certain, there is no man in the world can
affign any other lure way of diflinguifhing truth from
falfhood but this. And it is certain that every man in
the world in all other things that do moft nearly con-
cern him, doth always make his judgment by this rule
and meafure. And if in all other things. -why not in
matters of religion ? What pretence, what colour is
there that religion only mould be exempted from the
tribunal of reafon, to which all mens other concern-
ments are confeffedly fubject ? If indeed religion was
a thing defigned to deftroyand take away our natures;
if it was one thing to be a man, and another thing
to be religious, there Would be fome colour for this.
But there is no fuch thing. God in obliging us to re-
ligion confiders us as men. He doth not thereby in-
tend to deftroy our human natures, but to improve
them. Now if in matters of religion we rnuft be
fuppofed to be dealt with as men, it is certain we
can have no principles to judge of religion by but
only thofe CGmmon principles of reafon which are
planted in all the men in the world, and which confti-
tute their natures, and diftinguifh them from brutes,
and by which they are governed in all their humane
actions.
If any man reply to this, that in things of religion
we are to be guided by divine revelation, and not by
reafon, forafmuch as reafon is utterly unable to direct
us in the things of God ; we readily and heartily grant
it. But this makes nothing againft what I have now
laid down. For this is that we fay : We are to judge
of that revelation whether it be from God or no,
whether it be a divine revelation or an impofture 3 1 fay
B 4 we
3 Faith and Reafon
we are to judge of this by the principles of our reafon.
It is acknowledged by us as a certain thing, that after
we are once convinced that God hath made a revela-
tion of his will in any point, we are without more
ado to believe it, and ftedfaftly ro adhere to it. And
there is the greateft reafon in the world that we fhould
fo do. For it is one of the firfr. principles of reafon
that God cannot deceive others, nor be deceived him-
jTelf ; and therefore whatever he faith muft be true.
But then the matter in doubt is how {hall we be fatis-
iied that God hath made fuch a revelation ? Mull we
take every dodlrine for a divine revelation that any
one doth confidently affirm to be from God ? If {ot
then we fhall never be fecure from being impofed
upon, and we {hall have every day doctrines obtruded
upon us for divine truth, which are utterly inconfiilent:
with, and contradictory to one another. On. the other
fide, if we muft not take every thing for a revelation
from God that pretends to befo ; then there is a neceffity
we {hould examine whether that which comes recom-
mended to us as fuch, doth really defa*ve that name.
But what rules or measures can we examine this by, but
the principles of our natural inbred fenfes and reafon ;
thofe principles of truth which God hath implanted
in our natures antecedently to all pofitive revelations
of his will ? (
If any man will not be content with this, but will
obje£t further in tins matter, that we are sot .to judge
vf God's revelations by reafon, but by the Spirit; in
order to the making an anfwer to this, all that we
defire to know is, what they, who thus affirm do mean
by the Spirit ? If by the Spirit they mean only the af-
liftance of the Holy Spirit given to well-difpofcd per-
ions for the removing of their prejudices, and finful
; lufts,
reconciled in Religion, 9
lufts, that may hinder them from embracing the truth,
and the better enabling them to make ufe of their
reafon, and difcerning faculties in the fearching and
finding out the truth, we grant what they fay. We do
believe, that the Spirit of God doth thus concur with
every good man to the working faith in him, or the
making him a believer. But if by the Spirit, which
they fay is to judge of the things pertaining to God
and religion, they mean a principle in a man that hath
no agreement or communication with that other prin-
ciple of his nature which we call reafon ; but is a
thing put in opposition, and contradiction to that,
then we utterly deny what they affirm. We fay, that
fuch a Spirit ought not to have any influence upon our
understandings, or to be any rule or meafure of our
belief. For at this rate we could never have any fixed
rule to diit-inguifh between the Spirit of tiuth and the
fpirit of falfehood, and every impofture of the devil's
might pafs with us for the dictate of the Spirit of God j
and we could no way help it ; in a word we had no
way to try fpirits, but rauft believe every fpirit pretend-
ing to come from God : Which is exprefsly contrary
to the apoftie5s command, who bids us not to believe
every fpirit) but to try the fpirits whether they be of God
or no. 1 John iv. 1. How much foe ver therefore the
Spirit of God doth influence us in order to the making
us believers, this doth not in the leaf! hinder, but
that we are to try and examine the fpirits ; that is,
to ufe our utmoft fkill and endeavour to find out whe-
ther that fpirit that would perfuade us to the belief of
fuch and fuch doctrines be really from God or no.
And what rule have we to try the fpirits by but the
principles of reafon which is planted in our natures :
That is to fay our fenfes, and our common notions,
B 5 and
io Faith and Reafon
and the dictates of that natural religion which every
man is born with. By the agreement or difagreement
of any doctrine propofed to thofe principles, we only
can certainly know whether the revelation that pro-
pounds that doctrine be from God or no.
And thus much let it fufhce to have fpoken of our
fecond Dofition.
3. The third afTertion is this : That whatever is
propounded to us in matters of religion, if it do plainly
and evidently contradict the principles of natural rea-
fon, and be repugnant thereto, we ought not to believe
it as coming from God, becaufe it cannot be true.
I put in thefe terms of plainly and evidently, be-
caufe feveral points there may be of that nature, that
they may feemingiy clafhwith reafon, though they do
not ; and may feem to contradict fenfe, which yet do
not. And fo ill judges are fome men, both of fenfe
and reafon, that they may reject a point as inconfiftent
with both, which yet to all the wifer fort of men will
appear highly agreeable to them. But whatever is
plainly and evidently repugnant to the common fenfe
of mankind, that is to fay, contradicts thofe principles
by which all men diftinguifn between truth and falfe-
hood, and in fuch things and objects where fenfe and
reafon have a fair fcope to exercife themfelves ; I fay,
whatever in this cafe is repugnant to thofe principles,
ought not to be admitted by us as a truth of God, nor
confequently ought it to obtain our belief.
For if we are to judge of thetruth of divine revela-
tions by the principles of our reafon, then certainly
whatever is contained in any revelation which pretends
to be divine, that is evidently contradictory to thofe
principles, that very thing ought to be a juffc and fuffi-
eient argument to make us reject that revelation as to
that
reconciled in Religion. \ t
that point; for it is certain that truth cannot be con-
trary to truth. But now we fuppofe that our reafon
and common notions and fenfes are all true, and to
be relied upon ; otherwife they would be no rules for
us to meafure and judge of other things by. What-
ever therefore doth contradict them cannot be true, and
consequently cannot be fuppofed to come from God.
But fome may fay, May not God reveal fomething
to mankind in religion, and oblige them to believe it,
which is contrary to reafon ? I anfwer he can no more
be fuppofed to do this, than he can be fuppofed to deny
himfelf. For thofe natural notices we have for the
diftino-uimins; of truth and falfehood of things that are
reprefented to us are from him. They are the image
of his own mind imprefled upon our fouls. And
therefore, whatever doth not agree with thefe faithful
copies, cannot pofilbly agree with the original. If we
once be brought to believe that God's revelations in
any part of them do contradict the common principles
of reafon implanted in our nature, we muft of frecef-
fity at the fame time believe, that God can do and
undo at the fame time. That he doth at pleafure fo
alter the nature of things, that that which was true
yefterday, is not true to-day, and that which is now
true and acknowledged to be true by us (becaufe we
have the beft evidence in the world for the truth of it)
fhall upon a new revelation that he may make, ceafe
to be true to-morrow. Which pofuion, if it do net
deftroy all truth and all morality, I do not know what
doth.
The ufe I make of this point is this : That when
any perfon endeavours to perfuade us to the belief of
any point, we fhottld in the firft place fatisfy ourlVlves
that the point is not repugnant to our reafon, or our
fenfes*
2 2 Taifb and Reafon
fenfes. If it be, we ought not by any means to give
ear to it. Nay, by this very thing we may certainly
know, that the man that would perfuade us, is ei-
ther an impoftor himfelf, or impofed upon, fince he
teacheth that for a divine truth which is a perfect
falfehood.
As for inftance. If any man will endeavour to draw
me over to the belief of the doctrine of tranfubftantia-
tion; that is to fay, to believe that in the facrament
of the Lord's Supper, that which appears to me to be
bread and wine, is not really bread and wine, but the
very body and blood of Chrift that was broken and
£hed fixteen hundred years ago, and is now (as all
chriftians agree) at the right hand of God in heaven :
I ought not to believe him in this, be he otherwife
never fo credible a perfon, becaufe it contradicts my
own reafon, and my fenfes. And tho' for my convic-
tion he quotes a thoufand times the words of our Sa-
viour, who faid, this is my body, and this is my bloody
yet I muff, fay, that our Saviour could not mean thefe
words in the fenfe that he means them •> for if he did
underftand them in that fenfe, he muft in effect tell me
I am net to believe my own eyes, nor my own tafie,
nor my own feeling, in a plain matter of fenfe, nor
my ov/n reafen in a thing that is as obvious as any-
thing in the world.
Again : If a man will preach to me that for the caufe
of religion it is lawful for a bifhop to depofe and murder
fovereign princes ; that I may take oaths of fidelity to the
government^ and yet break them upon a difpenfaT
tion from the vicar of Chrift ; that I may afBrm or deny
any thing before an heretical magiitrate, tho* it be with
the folemnity of venturing my falvation upon it, by
iwearing upon the gofpels , that I am not to keep
faith
reconciled in Religion. 1 3
faith with man fo long as I have a fecret refervation In
my mind, and am privileged thereto by the licence of
my fpiritual guide; I fay, whoever would impofe upon
me in fuch things as thefe, ought, without any other
difpute, to be rejected by me as a cheat. For what
he would perfuade me to, is contrary to the natural
notions of religion, andjuftice, and honefly, that are
implanted in my mind. And if he pretend any revela-
tion from fcripture for- thefe things, I may certainly
deny it, becaufe no revelation, no fcripture of God
can allow of fuch things ; they being contrary to the
principles of natural religion ; that is, that natural rea-
fon I have concerning religion, upon the credit of
which I am to believe and receive all fcripture and re-
velations.
Again : If any one would convince me that I ought
to-worfhip the blefled virgin or any other faint, and
afTure me that feveral miracles have been wrought for
the confirmation of this point ; why here I mufl alfo
refufe my affent upon the fame account. If a thoufand
miracles had been performed (as are told us) by the
images of the virgin, or otherfaints, yet if God hath long
before declared that we are to worfhip none but himfelf
with divine worfhip ; and if that declaration of his has
been confirmed by an infinite number of undoubted mi-
racles in old time, both of Mofes and the prophets,
and Chrift, and his apoflles ; all the new miracles they
they tell us of, ought to fignify nothing to us. For God
having once declared his will and attefted that decla-
ration by many uncontroulable, unexceptionable mi-
racles, that is to be our ftanding perpetual rule to walk
by : And whatever miracles are oppofed thereto in
thefe latter times, ought not to be regarded by us ; but
we are to look upon them either as the delufions of
the
14. • Faith and Reafon
the devil, or the -figments and impoflures of defigning
men. For it is an eternal and unalterable principle of
reafon, that what God hath once made a law to man-
kind, and hath declared likewife that he will never alter
that law, or put a new one in the place of it, that law
fhall always bind, whatever pretences of new credentials
or atteftations from heaven be made ufe of to make
us believe that it is repealed or difpenfed with.
Laftly, if any man will be infinuating, that the
fcripture is now out of doors as being a dead letter, and
that it is the Spirit that is to guide us ail ; that the fa-
craments of chriftianity and the hiftorical matters of
our faith concerning Jefus Chrift's birth, life, and fuf-
ferings, are all to be interpreted in a myftical fpiritual
fenfe ; which fenfe we are to have from the infpiratior*
of the Spirit that witneiTeth within us ; fuch a man as
this I ought to abandon as a falfe prophet, as one that
oppofeth my fenfe and reafon, and fets up a private
fpirit againft the reafon of mankind, and the revela-
tion of Jefus Chrift, once publickly attefted to the fa-
tisfaction and conviction of the world.
4. And thus much of my third point. I now pro-
ceed to my laft proportion : That, notwithstanding
what we have faid, there may be many things in reli-
gion highly reafonable to be believed, which yet natu-
ral reafon could not difcover ; nor after they are difco-
vered can it fully comprehend. Though we do affirm,
that God doth never oblige us to believe anything con-
trary or repugnant to reafon ; yet at the fame time wq
do heartily acknowledge, that he hath obliged us to be-
lieve feveral things which cannotbedemonftrated by rea-
fon; nay, and fome things, which reafon cannot fo per-
fectly fathom as to mafter all the difficulties of them.
But yet for all that, there is infinite reafon that we fhould
be-
reconciled in Religion, j 5
believe thefe things ; and in the belief of them, we pro-
ceed upon thofe very foundations of common fen fe and
reafon, that we have all this while been eftablifhing.
For inftance ; it cannot be demonftrated by reafon,
that God fhould fend his Son Jefus Ghrift for the falva-
tion of mankind 5 much lefs that he fhould expofe him
to a cruel death, as a facrifice for the fins of the world,
Nor can it be proved by reafon, that this Jefus that
died for us, muft at the end of the world, come again
vifibly in perfon, to judge the quick and the dead ;
and that then, all men that have ever died, mall be
raifed ; that is to fay, they {hail have bodies united to
their fouls, fo as to find themfelves perfectly the fame
perfons, which they were in this world ; (which is
that which we call the refurrection.) I fay, reafon
could not have found out any of thefe things. The
mod fagacious and contemplative man upon earth,
could never have difcovered this method of God's pro-
ceeding with mankind. Or, if he fhould have happened
on fome thoughts or fancies about fome of thefe points,
yet he could never, by folid arguments, have proved
them to be- certain truths : becaufe, they altogether
depended upon the pleafure of God. So that thefe
things we are to believe perfectly, upon the authority
of divine revelation. We therefore know them to be
true, becaufe God hath told us that they are fo. But
then, after God hath revealed thefe doctrines to us
by his Son Jefus Chrifl, and his apoftles, they do ap*
pear fo highly reafonable in themfelves, and fo every-
way fuitable to the goodnefs and jultice, and wifdom
of God, that any man's reafon, if it be fincere, and
pure, and unprejudiced, cannot but heartily clofe with
them, and aflent to them, as foon as ever they are
fairly propofed with the evidence that attends them.
8 Nor
1 6 Faith and Re a f on
Nor is there any objection to be made againft them,
either in point of poffibility, or in point of reafon-
ablenefs, or in point of evidence, but what any confi-
dering man can eafily quit himfelf of.
But then, there is another fort of doctrines, which
our chriftianity obliges us to believe, which are more
myftenous ; that is to fay, do not lie fo plain and ob-
vious to our reafon, even after they are revealed to us,
as the former do. Eut fo much are they above the ca-
pacity of our fhort underftandings, that we muft believe
them, without being able to have a full and adequate
comprehenfion of them. And fuch are thefe two ar-
ticles of our religion, the doctrine of the incarnation,
and the doctrine of the Trinity. Not that thefe doc-
trines are unintelligible ; or, that we cannot form a
confident notion of them ; for it is certainly otherwife ;
we may truly underftand, and form a confident notion
of both thefe points : But this is the thing, by reafon
of the infinity of the object that is here prefented to
tis, and the fhallownefs of our finite underftandings,
that are to connder them, we muft of neceflity fall fhort
of feeing fo clearly through thefe points, as not to be
intangjed with great difficulties, when we would over-
curiouily pry into them. But then, all this may well
confift with what we have been afferting. Notwith-
flanding this, we do in no wife act contrary to reafon
or fenfe, in giving aiTent to thofe doctrines, how much
above our reafon foever they be. We are ftill able to
give an anfiver to every one that jhall ajk us a reafon
of the faith that is in us, even as to thefe two fub-
lime myfteries. There is nothing in them contrary
to our common fenfe and reafon, and fo it is poflible
they may be true. God Almighty (and that we can
prove) hath actually revealed and taught them by his
Son :
reconciled in Religion, 1 7
Son : And To we are certain they are true. Here is
fufBcient fatisfaction for our reafon, and here is funi-
cient evidence for our faith. All that we have here
to do, is to examine, whether Jefus Chrifl and his
apoftles have taught thefe doctrines : and when we are
convinced of that, to believe them heartily, to profefs
them conltantly, to worfhip God according to the dif-
coveries he hath made of his nature, and to acquiefce
in thefe revelations without troubling ourfelves or others
with nice queftions and fpeculations about them.
But yet, here it is that we are now- a- days briikly at-
tacked by the patrons of that doctrine, which I touched
upon under my laft head. Rather than we fhall not be-
lieve tranfubftantiation, they would have us call in
queftion the trinity and ChrifVs incarnation. For,
fay they, you have the fame evidence in fcripture
for the one doctrine, that you have for the other ;
and as for the point of reafon, the one is every
whit involved with as many difficulties, and abfur-
dities, as the other is pretended to be ; why there-
fore fhould you not equally believe both ?
I have not now time to anfwer this argument as
it deierves to be anfwered. Only I leave with you
thefe three differences between the two doctrines,
tranfubirantiation on the one hand, and the trinity
and incarnation on the other.
The firil is, that there is not the fame evidence
in the word of God for the one, that there is for
the other : The former being no where evidently
taught there ; no, nor thought to be taught there
by the chriflians of the firft ages : The latter be-
ing plainly delivered by Chrift and his apoftles, as
the very foundation of chriftianity, and the faith
into which all believers were to be baptized.
The
1 8 Faith and Reafon, &c.
The fecond difference is, that tranfubftantiation
is plainly about a matter that falls under the cogni-
zance of our fenfes and reafon. But the doclrines
of the trinity and incarnation, have an infinite God
for their object, to whofe nature neither our fenfes
nor our reafon is any ways adequate or commen-
fur ate.
The third difference is, that there are manifeir. ab-
furdities and contradictions in the one doctrine, but
none at all in the other two. Though they be above
our reafon, yet they are not contrary to it.
But I may fpeak more of thefe Things, and of
this text hereafter. In the mean time confidef what
you have heard, and God give you underftanding
in all things.
N. B. See thefe three laft points of difference
enlarged upon* in the latter end of the fecond
fermon againft tranfubftantiation.
S £ R-
SE
Every man to judge for himfelf in things
neceffary to falvation. The different
ways prefcribed by the Roman Catho-
h'ckS) and the Protejlants, for the com*
ing to the true faith, compared.
i Pe t. iii. 15.
-Be ready always to give an anfwer to every
man that ajketh you a reafon of the hop that
is in you.
WO general points I laid down to infift
upon from this text.
Firft, that faith and reafon are not in-
confiftent one with another, but may well
ftand together. If we be obliged to be able to give an
account of the reafonablenefs of our faith ', (which is the
fame thing which is here called hope) then certainly we
are not obliged to believe any thing which is unreafon-
kble3 or that we cannot give a reafon for believing it.
Se-
20 Man to judge for himfelf
Secondly, That it is not enough that our faith or
religion be reafonable in itfelf, but it is the duty of
every profeflbr of that faith, fo to fatisfy himfelf of the
reafonablenefs of his belief, as to be able to anfiver
them that ajk a reafen of it. And therefore every man
not only may, but ought to enquire into the grounds
of his faith, or religion, and not fo to rely upon any
human authority, as to believe, without examina-
tion, every thing that is propofed to him.
Thefe are the two points, or doctrines, or obferva-
tionsj which I raifed upon this text : and which I de-
figned both to explain and to vindicate. The former
of them I have already difpatched. I now proceed to
the other.
II. It is not indeed in direct words aiTerted in the
text, but it is by necefiary confequence inferr'd from
it. For if every chriflian ought fo well to inform him-
felf about what he believes, as to be able to give ci-
thers a reafon of his faith, then he certainly not only
may, but ought to examine every thing that is pro-
posed to his belief, and upon that examination to make
a judgment, whether it is reafonable for him to believe
it or no.
This confequence is fo direcl: and full from the text,
that there is no avoiding of it. And indeed, this is
no more than what is every where taught and deliver-
ed as the privilege, and as the duty of all chriftians,
even thofe that are private perfons. It is not to the
bifhops and paftors, and guides of fouls only, but to
the people, that St. Paul directed that precept of his,
in. his firft epiftle to the TheMalonians, that they
fhould f>rove all things, and hold faji that which is
good, v. 21. Every thing ; was to be tried and exa-
mined before they admitted of it. And if after that
trial
hi things ncceffary to Salvation. 2 1
trial and examination they found it to be a good doc-
trine, a doctrine agreeable to the gofpel, then they
were to embrace it, and fo to hold it as never to de-
part from it.
It was likewife to all chriftians, that St. John wrote
when he faid thefe words, Beloved, believe not every
fpirit, but try the fpirits whether they are of God : be'
caufe many falfe prophets are gone out into the world,
1 Ep. iv. 1. What is the meaning that we are not to
believe every fpirit, but to try the fpirits, whether they
be of God? Certainly this 5 That we are not to be-
lieve every one that takes upon him to be an infpired
man, or that would pretend to deliver doctrines to us*
as the infallible truths of God : But we are to exa-
mine thofe that make this pretence, whether they can
really produce their credentials that they come God.
We are to examine likewife the doctrines they teach,
whether they be really agreeable to thofe principles of
natural and revealed truths which we are fure came
from God. And there is great reafon why we mould
all thus try before we truft, for as the apoftle adds,
there are many falfe prophets, that is, falfe teachers,
gone out into the world.
Furthermore , What is the meaning of all thofe fe-
veral exhortations and declarations of our Saviour,
where he defired the people to fearch the fcriptures,
John v. 39. as the true way to bring them to the be-
lief of him and his doctrines ? WThere he cautions
them againft calling any man Rabbi, or mafter, upon
earth ; becaufe they have but one majhr or teacher,
Matt, xxiii. v. 8, 10. and that is, our Lord Jefus?
Where he reproaches them for too blindly following
their Guides, telling the||, if the blind lead the blind,\
both fiall fall into the differ Matt. xv. 4. Where he
ex-
2 2 Man to judge for himfelf
expoftulateth with them for relying too much upon
the authority of their teachers, and therefore rejectino-
his doctrines, becaufe his fuperiors did not believe it ?
Why of your oivn felves, faith he, did ye not judve that
which is right I Luke xii. 75. Sure if any thing can
be plain, it is from the New-teftament, that God
riot only allows, but alfo requires, that every man in
matters of his falvation mould judge for himfelf: And
not fo give up himfelf to the conduct of any humane
authority, but that he ought ftill to be at liberty to
examine doctrines of faith by the common principles
of reafon and divine revelation ; and according as he
finds them agreeable to, or inconfiftent with thofe
principles, either to admit them, or reject them.
I will but mention one thing more upon this head,
and I have done. Mind thefe words of St. Paul : If
we, fays he, or an angel from heaven, preach to you any
ether gofpel than what ye have received, let him be ac-
curfed, GaL i. 8- How ! not an apoftle, not the great-
eft of all the apoftles, St. Paul, who labour'd more
abundantly in the work of the Lord than all the apo-
ftles, not for him to preach another gofpel ? No, nor
an angel from heaven ; tho' he came with never fo
many flgns and wonders, (as undoubtedly, if an angel
from heaven was to preach, it would be with miracles
in abundance ;) I fay for thefe not to be believed, when
they taught things contrary to, and inconfiftent with
the fbnding revelations of gofpel, as we have them
in the fcriptures ? Nay, not only not to be believed,
but to be abhorred ; to be utterly rejected as impof-
tors, and falfe prophets, and to be accurfed ? I fay,
what are we to gather from hence ? Certainly if
we can gather any thing, we may gather thefe three
things
I,
in things necejfary to Salvation. 23
1. That there is but one gofpel. That very go-
fpel which was preach'd by Chrift and his apoftles,
and which we have conveyed down to us in the books
of the New-teftament.
2. That whatever article of faith is propofed to our
belief, if it be repugnant to that gofpel once delivered
to us, is to be rejected as a falfe doctrine ; and the preach-
ers of fuch doctrines, let them be apoftles or angels, let
them mew never fo many miracles for the proof of their
miflion, are not to be heard but held as falfe prophets. -
2. That every man who hath once been inftructed
in the gofpel of Chrift, and is a profeiTor of it, is to
judge for himfelf, whether any doctrine that is pro-
pofed to him be agreeable to that gofpel or no. U it
be inconfiftent with the gofpel which he hath once re-
ceived, he is to reject, it, tho' St. Paul, or an angel
from heaven mould preach it to him. I fay, of this
every man is to be judge for himfelf; for otherwife
why mould St. Paul fay this to the people of Galatia P
Why mould he tell them fo folemnly, that they mould
adhere to that gofpel he had preach'd to them, not-
withstanding all the pretences of the falfe teachers
that were come among them ? Nay, he tells them,
that if he himfelf, or an angel from heaven, Jhould
preach to them any other gofpel than %uhat they had re-
ceived before, they Jhould not be heard. Did he not
plainly in this make them the judges of that gofpel,
and of what was confident with it, and inconfiftent
with it ? Was not that gofpel the ftandard by which
they were to meafure all other new doctrines ? And
were not they themfelves to be the meafurers ? Were
not they to be the judges ?
Certainly it muft be (o -, and for the making it ap-
pear I would only aik this : Whether it had been a
fault
24 Man to judge for himfelf
fault or a fin in the Galatians, after St. Paul had fiiu*
warned them, to have taken up, or given credit to,
any do&rines of the falfe apoftles, contrary to the
gofpel ? If it be anfwered, that this were a fin and a
fault in.them if they did fo, then I infer undeniably,
that they were true and proper judges of what was the
doctrine of the gofpel and what was not. It was their
parts, having been initructed in the true gofpel, to have
compared the novel doctrines of the falfe teachers
with it, and accordingly as they found- them dis-
agreeing to the gofpel, to have rejected them. If this
had not been their duty, it could hot have been their
fin to have followed the falfe teachers in their new
doctrines.
So that the inference remains ilrong and undeni-
able, that in matters wherein man's falvation is con-
cerned, he is to be a judge for himfelf. And God
having given him a rule to judge by, he Is to examine
all doctrines that are propofed to him as neceiTary to
be believ'd, by that rule j and whatfoever doctrine he
finds different from, or inconfiftent with that rule, he
is to reject, whofoever the man be, or whatfoever the
church be, that propofeth them to him.
And thus I think I have fufficiently made good my
point. But I ought not thus to leave it. How plain
foever this matter feems to be, yet there are at this
day (1687) no fmall ftirs made about it. Nay, I be-
lieve I may fay, that upon this very point the main
difputes do turn, which do at this day divide the chri-
ftian church in thefe parts of the world.
Thus far we are all agreed, That the religion of
Jefus Chrift is the only way to falvation. And like-
wife we are agreed, That every man ought fo far to
enquire into ChrifFs religion, as to be fatisfied what it
7 *s->
: in things necejfary to Salvation, 25
is, and where it is to be found. But then here it is we
begin to. differ.
As chriftianity now goes in thefe weftern parts
of the world, there are two different ways prefcribed
for the coming to the knowledge of Chrift's religion ;
and each of them is vigoroufiy contended for by their
feveral parties.
The one way is that which the Roman- catholic?
go, and in fhort it is this : That every man, as to the
concernments of his foul, is fo far to enquire and ex-
amine, till he be fatisfied which is the true church of
Chrift. But after he hath once found that true church,
he has no need of further examining, but lie is from
henceforward to yield up himfelf to the government
of that church, and to believe every thing which that
church teacheth without further examination ; becaufe
that the true church is infallible, neither can be de-
ceiv'd itfelf, nor deceive others.
The other way is that which the proteftants go,
and it .is this : That jefus Chrift being the fole au-
thor of our faith and religion, we ought not, we can-
not believe any thing as an article of faith, or as ne~
ceffary to falvation, but what he and his infpired apo-
ftles taught; nor have we any certain way of know^
ing what they taught, but by the holy fcriptures they
left behind them. Thefe we are fure are the word of
God, and do contain all the neceffary points that
Chrift and his apoftles preached to the world ; and
whatever is not contained in them, or may not be proved
by tbem^js not, cannot be required of a?iy to be believed
as ofnecejjiiy to falvation , (as our church in her arti-
cles doth word it.) And therefore whatever doctrine
is recommended to us as an article of faith, if we find
that the fcriptures teach it, or that it may by good
Vol. VII. C confe-
26 Man to judge for bimfelf
confequence be proved from thence, we do heartily
and willingly embrace it. On the other fide, if we
find any doctrine which is recommended to us as an
article of faith, to be repugnant to the holy fcriptures,
or to clafh with them, we do certainly reject it. And
this right and privilege of examining matters of reli-
gion, and trying them by the holy fcriptures, we do
not fo appropriate to the guides of the church (though
they of all others, as they are beft. qualified, fo are
they moft efpecially obliged to do this) but we do al-
low it alfo to every man of a private capacity, fo far
as he hath means and opportunities of informing him-
felf.
For fince, as the Roman-catholics fay, every
man's falvation depends upon his profeiftng the true
religion of Jefus Chrifl, it is but infinitely reafonable,
that every man fhould judge for himfelf about that
religion. And fmce, as we fay, (and moil of them
likewife acknowledge) that all the religion of Jefus
Chrift is contained in the fcriptures, it is but infinite-
ly reafonable (fay we) that every man fhould be well
fatisfied, that the doctrines which are propofed to him
as articles of faith, are really the doctrines of holy
fcripture. And whether they be fo or not, he is to
be the fole judge himfelf, taking in all the beft helps
he can have for the making fuch a judgment.
This is a plain account of the two ways that are
prefcrib'd or advis'd for the coming to the true faith,
the one by the Roman- catholics, the other by us.
In this both agree, That every man is allow'd, nay
is bound to make enquiry or examination of his reli-
gion. We are all agreed, that every man fhould be
able to give a reafon for the hope that is in him. But
then here we differ. The Roman-catholics fay, we
are
in things neceffary to Salvation, 2j
are to examine till we have found the true church ;
but when once we have found that, we are for ever
after to be concluded by that church's determinations.
The proteftants fay, That a man cannot know the
true church, but by examining the doctrines which
that church holds and teacheth, whether they be
Chrift's doctrines or no 3 and there being no way to
know that, but by examining whether they do really
agree with thofe doctrines that are taught in the holy
fcriptures, I fay, fmce this is the cafe, there is a ne-
ceffity of allowing every particular man to try his
faith by the holy fcriptures, and after that trial to
iudgefor himfelf.
So that you fee here is a material difference be-
tween us. The Roman-catholics do only fo far in-
quire into religion, as to find the true church, and af-
ter that they fubmit to their church's guides in ali
things. The proteftants do inquire into Chrift's reli-
gion, as it is taught by the word of God, and by that
they find out the true church. The one believe the
doctrines of religion for the church's fake that teaches
them : The other believe the church for the doctrine's
fake that me teacheth, as being in all things agree-
able to the word of God. The one take up their re-
ligion from the church: The other take up their
church from its religion. Or if you would have me
exprefs this bufinefs in the language of my text ; if a
proteitant be required to give a reafon of the' hops that
is in him, it will be neceffary for him to give a rational
account of all the articles of his faith. But if a Ro-
man-catholic be required to do this, it is fufficient to
fay, that he reds fatisfied in the judgment of his fu-
pe-riors ; or, to ufe the words of the Rhemifh tefta-
ment, The man faith enough ■, and defend eth himfelf fuf-
C 2 family,
28 . Man to judge for him/elf
'fluently* that anfwers he is a catholic, and that he will
live and die in that faith, and that his church can give
a reafon of all things which are demanded of him. So
that, if the church be but able to give a reafon of the
faith, it is no great matter whether the man that pro-
fefleth that faith be able to give an anfwer or no.
And now, having laid before you the two different
ways of giving a reafon "of our faith, I will, if you
pleafe, fairly examine both of them. And I will be-
gin with the Roman-catholics way of inquiring and
giving a reafon of our faith.
And that, as I told you, is this. That tho' we are
every one to examine and enquire about our religion,
and fo to be able to give a reafon of our faith, yet the
main thing we are to enquire or examine into is this :
Which is the true church where infallibility is lodged? for
after we have found that church (as we find it no
where but in the church of Rome) our enquiry is at
an end. We are from henceforward to believe, and
to obey the church.
This is the point 1 am now to difcufs. And I will
do it with all the fairnefs and all the plainnefs I pof-
fibly can ; tho' all that I fhall do at this time towards
ft, is only to afk thefe two or three questions :
Firitof all, fince it is acknowledged by them, that
we are to make ufe of our bell (kill, and reafon, and
fagacity for the finding of the true church, how comes
it about, that all on a fudden, after we have found that
true church, we mull difcard thefe things as ufelefs
tools, and never after employ either our fkill, or our
reafon, or our natural fagacity for the making a judg-
ment of any point that concerns our fouls ,? This is
very hard, and unfair dealing with thole parts that God
Almighty hath given us. In all other concernments
of
in things necejfary to Salvation. 29
of our lives we find, and are fenfible, that thofe powers
and faculties in us, which firfl enable us to understand
any bufinefs, and to fet about it, we have need of in
the conduct of that bufinefs ever after.
In every paltry defign of this world, a man thinks
it not enough that he hath laid his projects well, and
put them into good hands, but if he means to have
fuccefs in his defigns, he is obliged to purfue them,
and to make ufe of all the talents of wit and induftry
he hath, to bring them about. Reafon is never to
for fake him, or if it do, it is ten to one but he is for-
faken of others upon whom he depended. But now,
as the cafe frauds in religion, according to the Roman-
catholic doctrine, rer»fon5 and thinking, and studying,
and examination, and induftry, and fearch, tho' they
be necefTary tools to be made ufe of for the putting a
man into good hands, yet after he is in thofe hands,
he is to throw all thefe things away, and never after
to make ufe of them. Doth this look like a doctrine
of God ? No certainly. Every one that understands
the dignity of his own nature, and knows what rea-
foil is, and how far men differ from brutes, and in
what things they excel them, will be of another opi-
nion. How can any man conceive, that God mould
have given us our reafons and understandings merely
for the finding; the true church, and afterwards thofe
reafons and understandings mould be altogether insig-
nificant as to matters of religion ; that we mould have
no ufe of them, but be acled like fo many machines ?
Is this to offer a reafonable fervice to God P
The Roman-catholic doctrine fuppofeth us all to
have eyes, and to be able to chufe our way fo long as
we are heretics, or fo long as we are wavering ; all
that time they allow us to have our eye-fight, and
C 3 - then
30 Man to judge for bimfelf
then they bid us to enquire, and examine, and to
prove, and to try. But when afterwards any of us
Lath found the true church (that is their church) then
we are no longer to examine, or to prove, or try. But
what is this but in plain Englijh to tell us, God hath
given you eyes for the choice of your guide, but
after you are fatisfied, that you have light on a good
guide, you are from henceforward to put out your
eyes, and for ever after to act as you are order'd by
your guide.
Another queflion I would afk is this : They tell us
that we are to enquire and examine matters of reli-
gion, till we have found the true church, but after
that we are to acquiefce in the determinations of that
church. Now the queftion I would afk is, How we
fhali find the true church any other way than by com-
paring the dochines that the church holds, with the
, holy fcriptures ?
I know that the Roman-catholics have taken a
great deal of pains to give us the notes of the true
church. And of all others, cardinal Bellarmine has
taken the greateft pains, and hath given us fifteen notes
of the true church, and one of thofe notes is fanSfity
of doofrine. We do all grant, that he is perfectly
right in this, however he may be miftaken in the reft.
For it is certain, that the true church of Chrift is to
be known by the doctrines it teacheth ; and no church
can be a true church, unlefs it profefTeth and teacheth
Chrift's true doctrines, as to all the foundations of Chri-
stianity. But now if this be fo, as it certainly is, how
can any man pretend to know the true church, with-
out a particular examination of the doctrines that that
church teaches? If one mark of the true church be
(as Bellarmine fays it is) that it fhould teach the do-
ctrine
in things neccffary to Sahaticn. 3 1
c*txine of Jefus Chrift, then certainly we cannot know
the true church till we have examined its doctrines 5
and therefore before we can know the goodnefs of a
church, we are to examine and enquire whether the
doctrines that are taught in it be all honeft, and chri-
stian, and pious, and agreeable to the word of God.
So that after ail, every man is to examine by the word
of God, what things he is to believe in order to his fal-
vation.
But thirdly, here is a greater point yet behind. For
admitting the church of Chrift to be infallible, nay,
admitting the church of Rome (which pretends to be
the catholic church) to be infallible, yet would pri-
vate men be the better for it ? Would they be more
fecure from errors in faith than we who pretend to no
infallibility ? This is a very great queftion, unlefs every
pirticular guide that is to convey the church's faith
down to us, be infallible likewife j nay, unlefs every
private man that hearkens to that guide were aifo as
infallible in taking the true fenfe of the doctrines, as
the teacher is infallible in propofing them.
And laflly, here comes the great queftion of all :
How doth it appear that that church, or any church,
or all churches taken together, are infallible in all
things that they prop of e as articles of faith ? I mnft con-
fefs, I take this to be a very difficult thing to be pro^
ved. Nay, I fay further, it is impoffible to be proved.
Nay, as far as a negative can be proved, we can prove
the contrary.
But I dare not now enter upon thefe points, but
{hall referve them, together with what remains upon
this argument, to another opportunity.
C 4. S E R-
Concerning the Infallibility of the Church.
Which being admitted, in the fenfe of the
Roman catholics, would not anfwer the
ends they propofe to ferve by it.
i. Pet. iii. 15.
~Be ready always to give an anfwer to
every man that afketh you a reafon of the
hope that is in you,
H E point which I was Iaft infifting upon
was this : That it appears from this text,
that it is the duty of every chriftian fq,to
fatisfy himfelf about the reafonablenefs of
his belief, as to be able to anfwer them that afk a reafon
of it. And therefore every man not only may, but
ought to enquire into the grounds of his faith or reli-
gion, and not fo to rely upon the authority of his
guides, as to believe, without examination, every thing
that is propofed to them,
This
Oftbe'InfaWWityl &c. 33
This is the point before us. And I endeavour'd to
make it good by fuch arguments as I thought moil
convincing, viz. fuch as were drawn from plain texts
of fcripture.
.After this, I proceeded to give an account of the
two different ways and methods that are now on foot
among us, as to this matter. We are all agreed, that
every man is allowed, nay, is bound to make an in-
quiry or examination about his religion. We are all
agreed, that every man mould be able to give a reafon
of the hope that is in him. But then here we differ :
One party faith, that we are to examine till we have
found the true church : But when we have found that,
we are to be for ever after concluded by that church's
determinations, becaufe that the true church, wherever
it is, is infallible to all that fhe propofeth as matters of
faith. The other party faith, That a man cannot
know trie true church, but by examining the doctrines
which that church holds and teacheth, whether they
be Chrift's doclxines or no. And there being no way
to know that, but by examining whether they do
really agree with thofe doclrines, which, we are fure,
were taught by Chrift and his apoftles, and are con-
tained in the holy fcriptures ; I fay, fmce this is the
cafe, there is a necefnty of allowing every perfon to
try his faith by the holy fcriptures, (making ufe of the
beft. means he hath, for the right understanding of
them) and after trial to judge for himfelf. So that you
fee here is a material difference. The one fide would
have men only fo far inquire into religion, as to find
the true church, and after that, to fubmit to their
guides in all things. The other fide would have men
to inquire into Chrift's religion, as it is taught in the
word of God, and to make ufe of their own jud'g-
C 5 , ment
34 Of the Infallibility
ment all along. The one believes the particular do-
ctrines of religion, for the church's fake that teacheth
them : The ether believes the church for the fake of
the doctrine that fhe teacheth. The one takes up his
religion from the church, the other takes up his
church from its religion.
Having thus given an account, wherein the main dif-
ference betv/een the two churches lies, as to this point,
I proceed to enquire which of thefe two ways, theirs,
or ours, doth mod recommend itfelf to a prudent man.
And here I urged two things againft their way, and
for ours ; that their way feems very hard and unnatu-
ral, becaufe it puts an affront upon the faculties that
God hath given us, for the examining and judging, of
things by ; and Secondly, that it feems to be deftruc-
tive of itfelf; for fince both fides are agreed, that that
cannot be the true church, which doth not hold the
true doctrines of Jefus Chrift, and fince they them-
felves do affign it as a mark, or a note, whereby we
may come to know the true church, namely, that it
holds Chrrft's true doctrines ; how is it poflible for
any man*to find the true church, without firft. examin-
ing what doctrines that church holdeth, and trying
them by the fcriptures, whether thoie doctrines be
the doctrines of Jefus Chrift, or no : ftill making ufe,
I as I faid before, of the belt means he hath, for the
right understanding of thofe fcriptures. And if thus
much will be allowed us, we will contend for no
more.
Thus far I went the laft' time. And' now, in the
third place, I have this other thing to add about the
inconveniency of their way more than ours, and that
is :, allowing that to be true, which they ground
this their method upon, viz. That the true church is
j infallible >
of the Church of Rome] 35
infallible ; I fay, allowing this to be true, yet it doth
not at all appear, that particular perfons, that follow
their way, have any better means of coming to the
knowledge of a right faith, than they have among us,
and according to our method ; and perhaps not near
fo good.
Both they and we acknowledge the fcriptures are
infallible, and we fay, that they are likewife fo plain
in all necefTary points, that every chriflian, with the
help of fiich means, as he hath daily at hand in our
church, may rightly underftand them, as to all points
needful to his falvation ; fo that every honeft chriftian
among us may have a fure foundation to build his faith
upon.
On the other fide their pofkion is, That a private
man cannot be certain that he is in the right way, un-
lefs he be certain that he adheres to the doctrines of
the church, and fquares his faith by them ; the church
being the only infallible interpreter of fcripture.
Well now, we will fuppofe a man heartily to be-
lieve this: is fatisfied that he hath not true faith, un-
lefs he believes according to the faith of the church.
Here a queftion arifeth, How fhall he be able to know
whether he believes as the church believeth, that he
holds all points of faith as the church holdeth them ?
This he muft be able certainly to know, or elfe he
hath no better ground for his faith than his neigh-
bours. Tho' the church is infallible in what fhe
teaches, yet what doth this infallibility iignify to himr
unlefs he knows what the church teacheth ? But how
(hall he know that any better than he can know what
the fcripture teacheth t Nay, how can he know that
half fo eafily as he may do the other ? It being cer-
tain, that the definitions of the church, in matters of
faith,
3 6 Of the Infallibility
faith, as they are more in number, fo they are more
nice and intricate than thofe of the fcripture are.
Well, but to this it is anfwered, That private men,
who have not abilities and opportunities of learning
the doctrines of the church from its authentic de-
crees, muft reft fatisfied in the judgment and direc-
tion of their particular guides, and take the doctrines
of the church from them. Well this is very true.
But here the queftion returns. Are particular guides
infallible, or no ? If they be not, then it is poflible that
the guides themfelves may be miftaken, and if (oy
they may miflead the man that trufts to them ; and
then what fervice doth the church's infallibility do
him, in order to the certainty of his faith ? If it be
faid, that particular guides are infallible, I only an-
fwer, it would be well if they were fb ; but yet it is a
thing that they themfelves do not pretend to. Well,
but fuppofing every guide or confefTor was infallible in
all things that he taught for the doctrine of the church,
as the head of the church himfelf is, yet ftill the diffi-
culty is not over. When a guide doth expound the
catholic faith to a private man, and the man is certain
that he doth rightly expound it, yet how is he certain
that he rightly understands the meaning of thofe do-
ctrines that his guide hath declared to him, for the faith
of the church ? It is not a new thins for thofe that do
make it their bufinefs to infcruct others as plainly as
poffibly they can in matters of religion, to have their
difcourfe molt horribly mifunderftood and perverted by
thofe that hear them. And now, if the thing be fo,
and this be the condition of all private men, that they
may miftake what is taught them, then what fecurity
hath a man that gives up himfelf intirely to the con-
duct of his guide, that he is not miftaken in matters
of
of the Church of Rome. 37
of faith, any more than we have, who, befides the
ufe of our guides, make ufe likewife of our own eyes
in examining by the fcriptures the doctrines they teach
us ? Nay, I afk, whether indeed our fecurity be not
much greater than theirs ? It feems to me, that there
is the fame difference in our cafes, as there is (to
make the meft favourable inftance I can) between a
man's taking up the truth of a relation at the third or
fourth hand from a credible perfon, and fo depending;
upon the truth of it, as he underftands it, from him?
without farther examination ; and a man's taking the
fame ftory from the fame perfon, but yet withal not
flicking there, but taking pains to trace it up, as to all
the particulars, to the original author. Or, as there
is between a man's receiving a piece of coin for cur-
rent money, merely upon the credit of his goldfmithy
without further trial ; and a man's both advifing with,
his goldfmith, and withal making ufe of all the other
helps he can come by, for the difcerning true money
from counterfeit.
But I am got a little out of my way. All that I
meant to (hew under this head is this, That admitting
the church to be infallible, yet private men would not
be the better for it ; would not be more fecure from
errors in faith, than we, who pretend to no infallibili-
ty ; unlefs every particular guide, that is to convey the
church's faith down to us, be infallible likewife.
Nay further ; admitting every lawful teacher of the
church to be infallible in what he taught, yet even
that would not fecure us from error, unlefs alfo it was
fuppofed, that every man that hears him was as infal-
lible in taking the true fenfe of thofe doctrines, as the
teacher is infallible in propofing them. And if thefe
things be fo j I leave it to any man to judge, what
7 greater
3 8 Of the Infallibility
greater matters the church's infallibility, if there was
any fuch thing, could do, as to the fecuring men from
errors in faith, than the protectant way of adhering to
the infallible fcriptures, in all matters of religion, and
making ufe of all the helps we can, for the right un-
demanding of them.
But Fourthly, let us at laft come to the main point,
upon which all this difpute is grounded ; and that is
plainly this : Whether indeed Chrift hath any infal-
lible church upon earth, or no ? One fide affirms, that
the true church of Chrift is infallible, and that their
church is that church. The other fide deny that any
church is infallible. If what they fay be true, then
we grant there is all the reafon in the world, that we
fhould in all things fubmit to the definitions of their
church, and it would be foolifh to difpute any parti-
cular points, after we were certain that that church had
decided them ; tho' yet, as I have told you, the means
of coming to that certainty are notfo infallible.
This is, indeed, the main fundamental point in de-
bate between us, and upon which, in a manner, ail
the other points of difference do depend. And you
fee, that for the clear refolution of this point, there
are two things to be examined ; Firft, Whether Chrift
hath any infallible church upon earth ? Secondly, Whe-
ther that church, which lays claim to this infallibility,
be that church of Chrift upon earth ?
But I fhall drop this latter queftion ; for if it do ap-
pear that no ehurch is infallible, there will be no need
of confuting the claim that any particular church makes
to that privilege,
I hope I may inoffenfively treat a little on this ar-
gument ; it is a point wherein our church is nearly
concerned, and y/herein ihe hath moil exprefsly de-
clared
of the Church of Rome, 39
clared herfelf : And therefore, it cannot be looked
upon as a controverfial point among us. It is a point
likewife, that is at prefent (1687) tne great enquiry
of unfettled minds, and therefore it cannot be judged
unfeafonable to fpeak a little about it. I would not
willingly offend or exafperate any perfon upon earth,
and raoft of all, I would avoid it in my preachings
But if, in the choice of the matter of my argument,
I fhould happen to difpleafe, yet I promife thofe that
are offended, that 1 will not difpleafe them in the man-
ner of my handling it. For I defire only to inform
mens minds, but neither to provoke any mens paffionsy
nor to humour or gratify them.
In fpeaking to this point, I defire only to premife
this, in order to your clearer underfranding the ftate
of the queftion.
We throw out of our debate all difputes about the
church's infallibility in fundamentals. We are ready
to grant, that the church of Chrift. is infallible in all
points neceiTary to falvation. We do not indeed ap-
prove much of the word infallible, becaufe in this cafe
it is improperly ufed \ (for in true fpeaking, the church
is not more infallible in fundamentals, than in thofe
points that are not fundamental.) But fince the pro-
portion is often put in thefe terms, we do not change
them. But then you are to remember, that all we
mean, when we fay that the catholic church is in-
fallible in fundamentals, amounts to no more than
this, That wherever there is a church of Chrift, (as
Chrift hath promifed there mall always be a chuich)
that church will retain all the foundations of Chrift's
doctrine : Will hold and teach ail things that are ab-
solutely neceiTary to falvation. And the reafon why
•we affirm this is, becaufe in truth, without this, it
would
40 Of the Infallibility
would be no church at all. But then this doth not hin*
der but that in thefirft- place any particular church may
err and fail, even in fundamental points, fo as to ceafe
to be any longer a true church. Becaufe God hath not
confined his catholic church to any particular place or
country. It is enough for the fulfilling of Chrift's pro-
mifes, that there {hall for ever, to the end of the
world, be fomewhere or other a true church of Chrifr,
profefiing and teaching all the efTential necefiary points
of his religion, which is all that is needful to the mak-
ing of a church.
Secondly, neither doth this concemon of ours hin-
der, but that every particular church, nay, and all the
churches of the world, tho' they may be infallible in
fundamentals, (as we have phrafed it) that is, tho'
they do hold the foundations of Chrift's religion, and
upon that account are true churches ; yet for all that,
they may err and miftake, in matters that do not be-
long to the foundation. They are not fecured by any
privilege that Chrilt. hath made over to them, even
while they continue true churches, either from teach-
ing falfehood for truth, or impofing fuch practices upon
their members, as are inconfiftent with the laws of
God. So that they cannot be relied upon, merely upon
account of their authority, without an examination of
their doctrines and practices. And thjs is indeed the
true flate of our point.
The queftion then that is here to be difcufled is,
Whether Chriir. hath any church upon earth abfolutely,
and in all things infallible: So that that church is at all
times fecured from errors in all things which {he pro-
pofeth or teacheth, in matters of religion ? This I fay
is the queftion. And it is determined by the church
of England in the negative. And my work at prefent
is5
of thi Church of Heme. 41
is, (though it be a very hard, nay an unreafonable tafk
to prove negatives) yet fairly and modeftlyto lay be-
fore you fome of the many reafons, why we do not be-
lieve that there is any fuch infallible church, or that
Chrift ever intended there fhould be fuch a one, tho'
the time will oblige me to be very fhort.
I. And the firft thing we offer is this, that if Chrift
had meant that there fhould be always an infallible
church upon earth, we cannot but believe that it would
have been fomewhere or other exprefsly told us in the
new teftament, both that there was an infallibility
lodged in the church for ever, and likewife, in-which
of all the churches in the world, this infallibility was
lodged ; that fo upon all occafions, chriftians in all
ages might know where to have recourfe to that infal-
lible church. But now, this not being done in the
whole New-teftament, neither by our Saviour, nor by
his apoftles, it is a ftrong argument to us, that no fuch
thing was ever intended by them.
We are not ignorant, that feveral texts of the new
teftament are produced as proofs of the church's infalli-
bility. But in truth, if thofe texts be but never fo lit—
tie confidered, and men be not carried away with the
mere found of words, it will appear to any unbiafTed
reader, that even thofe texts do not fpeak at all to the
bufinefs of infallibility ; or if they do, they concern
none but the apoftles themfelves.
Thus, for inftance, to prove the church's infallibi-
lity, they urge the words of our Saviour to St. Peter s
/ fay unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will
I build ?ny church, and the gates of hell /hall not prevail
againjl it. Matt. xvi. 18. But now, whatfoever be
here meant by the rock upon wliich Chrift. would build
his churchy whether St. Peter's perfon3 or the faith that
he
42 Of the Infallibility
he then confefTed, as moft of the fathers interpret it,
yet it is plain, that Chrift did not here promife infalli-
bility to his church, but only a perpetuity. He did not
fay that his church mould never err ; belt he laid, that
his church fhould never perifh. Every one that knows
any thing of the language of fcripture will be fatisfied
that is the meaning of the phrafe, that the gates of hell
Jbould never prevail againft. his church.
Again : They urge thefe words of our Saviour,
where he advifes, that tinman's brother trefpafs againft
him, Mat. xviii. 15. and the matter cannot be made
up between them, either by a private admonition, or
by referring it to the arbitration of two or three friends;
in that cafe, the laft remedy that the injured perfon had
was to tell the bufmefs to the church : And if the man
refufed to hear the church, ver. 1 7. he was then to be ac-
counted as an heathen, or a publican. But what is here
meant by telling the church ? There lies all the difficulty.
Why every one that confiders the fcopeof the place will
plainly fee, that Chrift meant no more than this, that
if the man could not make a private agreement with
his brother that had injured him, he was to complain
publickly of the injury to the congregation ; and if
upon the advice, or rebukes of the governor of the af-
fembly the man did not make fatisfadtion, but {till con-
tinued obllinate, the injured perfon was not from hence-
forward, obliged to u(^ any more endeavours to bring
him to a fenfe of his fault, but might after that, look
upon him as a Granger, or an heathen, and no longer
as a brother.
This is plainly the fenfe of the place. But what is
this to the bufinefs of infallibility? If it make any thing
that way, it rather proves the infallibility of the fupe-
riors of every congregation, or the infallibility of every
bilhop'j
ef the Church of Rome. 43
bifhop's confiftory, in redreffins; complaints that come
before them, than the infallibility of the church in de-
termining matters of faith.
Thus again it is urged, that Chrift told his apoftles
that he would be with them ; Matt, xxviii. 20. that is,
with them, and with the bifhops that fucceeded them,
t? the end of the world. Right. Chrift will always,
by the influence of his Spirit, be prefent, not only with
the governors of his church, but with every member
of his church. But yet I fay, this doth not imply that
every member or every bifhop is infallible. For my part
I fhould think it did more concern our Lord Jefus, by
virtue of this promife, to make his church impeccable,
than to make it infallible. My meaning is, that it was
a much more defirable thing to fecure his minifters and
people from the danger of fin, than from the danger of
error. But the former he hath not done, and there-
fore I much doubt of the latter.
Again : It is urged, that Chrift faid to his apoftles,
that after his departure he would fend the Comforter to
them9 even the Spirit of truths and zvhe?t he came hejhould
had them into all truth, John xvi. 13. This is very
true. And our Saviour was as good as his word, for he
did by his Spirit lead the apoftles into all truth: Nay, to
thatdegree, that we believe they did infallibly, and with
an unerring Spirit, preach all the truths of God, and
nothing but the truth. But then it is plain that this
promife was made only to the apoftles, and not to all
that fhould come after them. For after he had faid
that the Spirit fhould lead them into all truth, he pre-
fently adds thefe words, and he will Jhew you things t&
come, ver. 1 3. viz. He would endue the apoftles with the
gift of prophecy. But now, I hope, all thofe that fucceed
the apoftles in the church, do not pretend to any fuch
44 Qf tht Infallibility
aiTiftance of the Spirit as that was. If the bifbops of |
zny church can mew that they have the gift of pro-
phecy, in a continued fuccefiion, and that they can
foretel things to come, as the apoftles did, then we will
own that this promife of Chrift was directed to his
church in all ages. But not till then.
Laftly, it is brought for a proof of the church's in-
fallibility, that St. Paul tells Timothy, that the church-
was the pillar and ground of the truth, i Tim. iii. i$.
Why, admitting that St. Paul faid fo, yet it is plain
that it was not of the church, but of a church, a par-
ticular church, viz. that of Ephefus that he fpoke thefe
words. Which church of Ephefus ; where 77/#£2% was
bifhop, is not now in being, tho' while it was in being
it was a ft ay and fupport of truth. But what doth this
make to the proving, that any church at this day is in-
fallible ? But fuppofing we understand thefe words of
St. Paul of the church catholic, as the Roman- ca-
tholics would have us, yet even this will do them no
fervice at all. For we fay in the flrft place, that he
might ftile the church a pillar and fupport of truth, not
upon account that it always is \o, and always fhall be
fo j but becaufe it ought to be fo ; juft as our Saviour
calls all his difciples, all chriftians, the fait of the earth,
and yet in the fame place tells us, that that fait may
become unfavoury. Matt. v. 15. It is the duty of chri-
ftians to be the fait of the earth, and of the church to
be a pillar and fupport of the truth ; but it doth not fol-
low from thefe attributes, that either the one or the
other fhall always perform or make good thofe charac-
ters. I fay, if we do give this account of the pafTage
in St. Paul, there is none of them can confute us.
Again : We fay in the fecond place, that the church
may be always a pillar and ground of the truth, and yzt
be
of the Church of Rome. 45
je far from being infallible. All that St. Paul can be
fuppofed to have meant by this phrafe, if he had fpoke
of the catholic church, can be no more than this,
that the church of Chrift mould always be the pillar and
fupport of that neceflary truth which goes to the making
up themyfery ofgodlinefs, ver. 16. which he fpeaksof in
the very next verfe : That is to fay, the fundamental
truths of chriftianity fhall be always taught and pro-
fefled in the church, viz. fo much truth as will carry
the profeflbrs of it to heaven, if they live up to it.
But this comes infinitely fhort of infallibility. The
church may be thus a pillar and fupport of the truths
and yet at the fame time hold and teach a great
many errors.
But altho* this is fufRcient to fhew, that this text,
if underftood of the church, makes nothing for infalli-
bility ; yet I believe, any indifferent perfon that reads
the words, and minds them well, will be almoft forced
I to acknowledge that they are not to be underftood of
the church, but to be applied to Timothy himfelf, to
whom the apoftle writes ; fo as to be read thus ; Thefe
things I write unto thee, hoping to come unto theejhortly ;
hut if I tarry long, that thou tnayejt know hozv to behave
thyfelf in the houfe of God, the church of the living God,
us a pillar and fupport of the truth. He is giving rules
to Timothy how to behave himfelf in the church, which
he calls the houfe of God. Now, after that he called
it an houfe, one would think it not proper that he fhould
in the very fame breath call it a pillar of an houfe.
But now it is very natural to give that name to Timethy9
and to exhort him to behave himfelf as ilich in the
houfe of God ; as indeed the apoftles and bifhops are
in fcripture, called by the name of pillars. And if you
take the text in this (enCe (as I do verily believe this is
the
4 o Of the Infallibility
the meaning of it) it is ftill farther off from the pur-
pofe that it is brought for.
Thefe are the chief texts in the bible that are brought
in favour of the church's perpetual infallibility. But
you fee by that little I have faid of them, that not one
of them doth near come up to the point. Nay, in-
deed, doth not in the leaft touch it. And yet one
would think, that fo great a point as this, a point which
as they fay, fo nearly concerns every man's falvation,
fhould not have been thus filently paffed over both by
our Saviour himfelf, and by thofe infpired men that
pretend to give us an account of his doctrines.
2. But I leave this, and proceed in the fecond place
to another reafon, why we cannot believe that Chrift
hath any infallible church upon earth, viz, becaufe we
do not find that any of the primitive churches ever
pretended to fuch infallibility ; no, not the church of
Rome herfelf. We do not find that the doctrine of the
infallibility of the church, much \t(s of the Roman
church, is afTerted by any one antient council, or by
any one antient father. We do not find, that in the
controveriies which arofe in the ancient church about
matters of faith, the guides of the church ever made
ufe of this argument of the church's infallibility for the
quieting and ending of them ; which yet, had they
known of any fuch thing, had been the properefl: and
the eaneft means they could have ufed. Nay further
we know, that the antient fathers had another method
of confuting heretics and fchifmatics than by appeal-
ing to the church's infallibility ; namely, by bringing
their doctrines to be tried by the ancient ufages and doc-
trines of the apoftolic churches, and efpecially by the
divine oracles of fcripture, which they looked upon as
the entire and only rule of faith.
We
of the Church of Rome. 47
We know further, as to the clinch of Rome, that
by what appears by the carriage and behaviour of other
churches in the primitive times towards that church,
in matters where they were concerned together, it muft
be thought impofiible that thofe churches mould ever
have entertained any opinion, or fomuch as imagina-
tion of the Roman church's infallibility: They making
no fcruple, whenever there was occafion, to oppofe the
fenfe of that church as vigorously, as they either did or
could oppofe any other particular church that differed
from them.
3. But thirdly, another reafon why we are hardly
brought to believe that any church is infallible, is, be-
caufe we do not fee any effect of this infallibility in
the world, or any good which hath accrued to the
church, which may not as well be afcribed to God's
ordinary affiflance of every chriftian church without
infallibility, as with it.
It is faid indeed, thatwithout a living infallible judge,
controverfies that arife among chriftians cannot be
ended. Why that very church that pretends to infalli-
bility are not yet agreed among themfelves about feve-
ral points pertaining to religion. Nay, this very bufi-
nefs of infallibility (as important a point as it is) as to
the feat of it, where, or in whom it is lodged, is yet
•as great a controverfy among them as any.
It is faid, that without an infallible judge the fcrip-
tures cannot be expounded ; the fenfe of texts cannot
be afcertained. Why, as to this, we defire to be in-
formed, what advantages that church that pretends to
infallibility hath in this refpec~t, above other churches
that pretend to none. Do they in that communion,
underftand fcripture better than thofe who differ from
them ? Or have they fettled or cleared the fenfe of any
cn§
4$ Of the Infallibility
one doubtful text, by virtue of infallibility, during all
the time they have laid claim to it ? It will be a hard
matter to produce one text of fcripture, the fenfe of
which was by this means afcertained. We all know,
and muft confefs, that all thofe texts of fcripture which
were difficult and obfcure at the firft, remain fo to this
day, for any thing that any infallibility hath done to-
ward the clearing of them. And if the fenfe of any
obfcure paiTage in thofe holy books be more cleared,
or better afcertained to us than they were formerly,
next to the blefling of God, we are obliged for it to •
the learning and induftry of fallible commentators.
Thefe are fhrewd prefumptions, that it was not the
defign of Chrift that we mould arrive to the knowledge
of his will, by the conduct of an unerring guide, but
rather by honeftly and induftrioufly employing thofe
parts, and thofe ordinary means which he hath afforded
us for that purpofe.
I might mention another reafonwhy we think it very
unfafe to rely upon any church's infallibility, as to mat-
ters of faith, (and which indeed is worth all the reft)
and that is this : Becaufe it may be made to appear,
that that church, which only of all others claims in-
fallibility to herfelf, hath actually erred in her determi-
nations about matters of faith.
In faying this, I fay no more than what our church
hath declared in her nineteenth article. The words
of it are thefe :
Ci As the church of ferufalem9 of Alexandria , and
" Antioch have erred, fo alio the church of Rome hath "
". erred, not only in their living and manner of cere-
" monies, but alfo in matters of faith."
But I have held you too long already to engage you
in a new argument \ efpecially fuch a one as needs no
proof
of the Church of Rome. 4f
proof to us, we owning ourfelves proteftants, and be-
ing prefumed to be already fatisfied about it.
And therefore I take my leave of this argument,
and clofe all with thefe petitions in^our liturgy:
" That it would pleafe God to give all his people
*' increafe of grace, to hear meekly his word, and
" receive it with pure affeclion, and to bring forth the
M fruits of the Spirit.
w That it would pleafe him to bring into the way
<c of truth, all fuch as have erred and are deceived.
" That it would pleafe him to ftrengthen fuch as
<c do {land, to comfort and help the weak-hearted,
<c to raife up them that fall, and finally to beat down
** fatan under our feet.
God of his infinite mercy grant thisy for the f ah
'+f his dear Son, To ivbcm, &c»
You VIL D S E R-
SERMON IV.
That the fcripturcs may be understood in
all neceffary points by private perfons,
with ordinary helps, without an infalli-
ble interpreter of their fenfe ; and there-
fore not to be denied to the common
people,
2 Pe t. iii. 16.
- — In which are fame things hard to he under-
flood -, which they that are unlearned and un-
fiahle wreft^ as they do alfo the other fcriptures>
unto their own definition.
IT. Peter in this chapter is treating of the
fecond coming of Chrift to j udge the world,
and anfwering the objection that fome
fcofrers in thofe days made againft the
truth of it, upon account that it was delayed fo long.
To this he replies feveral things, and he backs what
he had faid with the authority of St, Paul, who had
written
cp
'be Scriptures not to' be denied \ &c. 51
written concerning thefe matters. Ye mould account
(fays he, ver. 15.) that the long-fuffering of our Lord,
(which is obje&ed againft) is meant for our falvation ;
even as our beloved brother Paul alfo, according to the
wifdom given unto him, hath written unto you y as alfo
in all his epiftles, fpeaking in them of thefe things, ver. 1 6.
And now having mentioned St. Paul and his epiftles,
he adds this note as it were by way of parenthefis [in.
which, fays he, there are fame things, &c]
Upon which words, before I come to treat of the
main point I defign from them, I mail defire leave to
make a few ftrictures or fhort notes.
1. Firft of all it is doubted, whether the firft words
of my text in which, do refer to St. Paul's epiftles,
or to the things he writes of in thofe epiftles. For
the relative article is in fome copies exprefTed in one
gender b *#, to refer to the epiftles ; but in moil co-
pies h oh, to refer to the things fpoken of. Accord-
ing to the firft reading, this is the propofition in the
text, viz. That in St. Paul's epiftles there are form
things hard to be underflood. According to the other
reading, this is the propofition, That among thofe par-
ticularsthat St. Peter is now infifting on, and which St.
Paul iikewifehath in his epiftles treated of there are
fome hard to be underfood. There is fome difference
between thefe propofitions ; but yet they are both of
them certainly true : And I do not fee any fuch matter
of confequence which of them we pitch upon, as to
think it worth the difputing whether of them is to be
preferred.
2. There have been various conjectures what thofe
particular points or paffages are in St. Paul's epiftles,
which St. Peter here calls WoV*, hard to be underflood*
and which he fays men in his time did wreft to their
D %
c&vn
£2 The Scriptures not to be denied
own defiruSfion. St. Auftin will have it, that he had
his eye on St. Paul's doctrine of jufiification by faith
without tvorks ; which fome heretics in thofe days per-
verted to very ill purpofes. Others give other accounts ;
but they are all uncertain; and it is a bufinefs of
greater curiofitythanufefulnefs, to be inquifitive about
this matter.
3. It is more to our purpofe in the third place, to
take notice of this : ,That it is not only in St. Paul's
cpiftles, that there are tW £vg-vojjt«, fome things hard
to he under]} 00 d^ but in all the other fcriptures like-
wife. And feems to be intimated here by St. Peter,
when having told us how liable unlearned and unjiable
men were to wrejl fome pajjhges in St. Paul's epiftles
to a wrong fenfe, upon account that they were hard to
be under/lood, he adds that they did fo likewife with
§iher fcriptures.
Indeed it ^cannot be denied, that there are abun-
dance of pafTages, both in the writings of the Old and
New-teftament, which are very hard to he under/} ood.
Some upon account of the depth, and myfterioufnefs,
and obfcurity of the things themfelves that are deli-
vered ; and many more, upon the account of the
fhortnefs and difficulty of the expreffions wherein they
are cloathed. But moil upon account of our ignorance
and unacquaintance with the idioms of the languages
they were wrote in, and the cuftoms, and hiftories,
and other things proper to thofe places and perfons
they were firft intended for, which are referred to in
them. So that if any man will fay, that the whole
fcripture is plain and eafy to be underftood, he affirms
very rafhly. There are a multitude of texts which
will puzzle the moft learned and intelligent man now
living, to give a certain account of. And therefore
eafily
to common People. 5j
cafily may we imagine that there is a far greater mul-
titude, which an ordinary unlearned reader will be abte
to fay little or nothing to.
4. But I obferve in the fourth place, after what man-
ner, in all times, the fcriptures have been dealt with.
Even in the apoftolical times there were men that
tore/fed them* The word is, rppAyVt : they did diftort
them from their natural meaning : they did torture
them to make them fpeak what fenfe they would have
them : they did not ftudy to take up their opinions
from fcripture, but they ftudied to force the fcripture
to comply with thofe opinions they had taken up be-
fore. This is properly wrefi'ing the fcripture -3 and this
practice, as it did begin very early, fo hath it ever
fmce continued in the world. In every age> and at
this day as much as ever, the fcriptures have been:
wrefted from their proper fenfe and meaning to ferve
turns : Among all the numerous divifions and fac-
tions that have been, or are in the chriftian church,
either with reference to doctrine or practice, there is
not one of them but hath always urged fcripture in
its own defence. There was none of the old heretics
(were their principles never fo unfcriptural) but had
abundance of texts to vouch for their orthodoxy, if
they might have the liberty of interpreting diem. And
at this day, not only we do urge the fcriptures for our
caufe, but papifts, focrnians, quakers, antmomians,
and all the other divifions among us, do all with equal
confidence appeal to the fcripture for the truth of their
caufe. Now certainly the fcripture can have but one
true fenfe, let the pretenders to that fenfe be as many
as they pleafe. And therefore all thefe men holding
contradictions to one another, cannot all be fuppofed
to interpret fcripture faithfully andfincerely ; But fome
D 3 of
£4 *Fhe Scriptures not to be denied
of them do wreft it in order to the ferving that caufe
which they have efpoufed.
5. But fifthly, it is worth our notice, what kind of
perfons they were in the apoftle's time, that did thus
wreft the fcrlpture ; they were, as he tells us, d^ac^sTq
ȣ arn^x\(n9 unlearned and unfi able. It may be he meant
the fame thing by both thefe words. But, if they be
to be diftinguifhed, by the unlearned we are to under-
ff and the ignorant and unfkilful ; they who never ap-
plied their minds to the careful reading of the fcripture,
nor have taken care to furnifh themfelves with thofe
helps and acquirements which are necefTary to be had
In order to the right underftanding it when they read
it. By the unliable, we are to underftand thofe that
are not well fixed and eftablifhed and grounded in the
faith of Chrift, (as the word dw^utloi moft properly
fignifies) but for want of true principles, do fluctuate
this waj/ and that way, and are tojfed to and fro with
every wind of doSlrlne^ as St. Paul exprefTes it,
Eph. iv. 14. Thefe were the unlearned and unff able
men that did, in the apoftle's time, wreft. the fcripture.
And fuch kind of perfons have they always been that
followed this practice of theirs in fucceeding genera-
tions. Whatever innovations or corruptions have been
brought into the church, whatever departures have
been made from catholic faith, and catholic charity
and communion, they had generally both their rife and
continuance from fuch unlearned and unftable men.
That which I would gather from hence is this : How
very necefTary it is for thofe who would rightly expound
the fcripture, both to furnifh themfelves with a compe-
tent meafure of fuch kind of learning, and fkiil, and
knowledge, as is proper for the underftanding of that
book, and alfo to be thoroughly grounded and princi-
pled
to common People. 55
pled in the fubftantial and fundamental doctrines of
the chriftian religion. If either of thefe qualities be
wanting, a man is like to make fad work if he fets up
for an interpreter of fcripture,
6. The fixth and laft thing I take notice of in thefe
words is, the fad confequence of a man's zvrejiing the
fcriptures, which is here mentioned. They ivre/t them,
fays the apoftle, to their own dejirudiion. This conn-
deration ought to make us all infinitely careful how
we abufe or pervert the fcripture, or make a tool of
it for the ferving our own ends. By fuch wicked pro-
ceedings, we fhall not only do a great mifchief to re-
ligion and the church, but undo ourfelves at the long
run. It is not indeed every error and miftake about
the fenfe of a text of fcripture, that is of this dange-
rous confequence, nor many fuch errors and miftakes
put together. A man may be ignorant or miftaken in
a. thoufand texts of fcripture, without any danger of
his falvation. But this is that we fay is dangerous,
when a man makes ufe of fcripture, to countenance
his vicious inclinations : As either when he fo per-
verts or corrupts the chriftian doctrine, as to give, en-
couragement to a wicked and un chriftian life, or
fuborns texts of fcripture, for the making or upholding
divifions and fchifms in the chriftian church. This
we fay, is fuch a wrejiing of the fcriptures, as it is to
be feared, thofe that ufe it, may too truly be faid to do
it to their own dejlruclion.
And thus much I thought fit to fpeak by way of
explication of the text. It fhall now be my bufinefs
to refolve the three following enquiries :
Firft, Since the character that St. Peter gives of
the fcripture, efpecially of St. Paul's epiftles is, that
there are in them hewta. things hard to be underfload\
D 4 with
5 6 The Scriptures not to le denied
with what truth can we proteftants affirm, That the
icriptures are plain and perfpicuous, and eafily under-
wood by vulgar capacities ?
Secondly, Whether from this point, that there are
in fcripture, things hard to he underftoody we can rea-
ionably draw fuch a conclufion as this, that therefore*
there is a neceffity, that Chrift mould have left in his
church fome vifible infallible judge for the interpreta-
tion them ?
Thirdly, Whether the difficulty and obfcurity of
the holy fcriptures, and their being liable on that ac-
count, to be wrefted and perverted to evil purpofes,.
be a fufficient ground for the forbidding the ufe of
them to the people ? And whether for all that, every
man may not, and ought not, ferioufly to apply him-
felf to the reading of the holy fcriptures, or the hearing
them read ?
I. My firit enquiry is, How can the proteftants po-
fition be true, That the fcriptures are plain and per-
fpicuous, and intelligible to ordinary capacities j when
yet, if we may believe St. Peter, there are in them
things hard to he underjlood ?
This is a difficulty that the Roman-catholics do-
urge us with, in order to the making us quit the fcrip-
tures as our rule of faith, and take up tradition in the
place thereof. But this will appear no difficulty at all, if
they would but rightly reprefent our doctrine in this
matter.
i. In the firft place, we do not fay, that every
pafTage of fcripture is plain, eafy, and perfpicuous ; nay,
we acknowledge, that there are feveral pafTiges of it
obfcure and intricate, and fuch as will puzzle not only
an ordinary reader, but even the moft learned, to give
the meaning of. So that we leave room enough for
St,
to common People. 57-
St. Peter's afTertion, that there are in fcripture TW
Sufftoyroi, fome things hard to be underftood. Nay, if
any man will enlarge his proportion, and fay, that
there are many things hard to be underftood in it, we;
do readily concur with them.
2. Neither fecondly do we fay, That thofe paflages-
which are intelligible to a learned reader, to one that:
is well verfed and experienced in thefe kinds of mat-
ters, are all of them eafy and intelligible to an un-
learned one. We acknowledge as well as they, that:
as a man is more or lefs furnifhed with proper helps,,
and means, and inftruments, for the understanding the.
fcripture ; as he hath more or lefs improved himfelf,,
by acquired knowledge and learning - fo he (hall,, in.
proportion,, underftand more or lefs of thofe holy
books. And we do not, upon a pretence of private;
infpiration from the. Spirit, of God, teach or think,,,
that every well-meaning godly perfon, is prefentlyqua-^
lify'd to expound the fcriptures>.
3. But thirdly, this is all that we fay, as to the
plainnefs,. and perfpicuity, and intelligiblenefs of the-
fcriptures, That tho' there be in them.many difficult:
paffages, nay, perhaps whole books 5 yet,, as to all!
thofe things, wherein the falvation of mankind is con-
cerned, they are fufEciently plain and eafy to be un-
derstood, both. by the learned and. unlearned.. So far*
as. fcripture is a rule of faith and manners, (and we.
contend that it is a. perfect rule of both) fo far it is
perfpicuous and obvious to all capacities - fuppofmg;
the men come with an humble, and honeft. mind,, de—
firous to learn their duty, and willing to practifeut af-
ter they have learnt it.. We do not fay, that there y
are no difficulties in fcripture 5 but we fay,, that alii
thofe things, that are neceiTary to be. believed, or prac—
D- 5. tifedj,
5 3 The Scriptures not to he denied
tifed, are not difficult. Or, if fome of them be more
obfcurely expreffed in one place, they are more plain-
ly in another. So that none can juftly except againft
the fcripture, as to the fitnefs of its being a rule of
faith and manners^ and very neceffary to be read and
known of all men^ upon account of the difficulty or
obfcurity of it.
But as to this the Roman-catholics urge, That it is
not fo clear that the fcripture is plain and perfpicuous,
even in neceffary points, wherein the falvation of men
is concerned. For if it were, how comes it to pafs,
that there are fo many difputes among the proteftants
about the fenfe fcripture, even in matters which they
account (at lead one fide of them doth account) fun-
damental and neceffary ? To this I anfwer ; That tho'
we fhould admit this fuggeftion to be true, that the
proteftants differ in their interpretation, even in funda-
mental points, yet it is no argument againft theplainnefs
and perfpicuity of fcripture in matters of faith and man-
ners. For things may be plain enough to all difinterefted
men, that are not plain to thofe who are ftrongly preju-
diced againft thofe things by education, or paifion, or
Intereft, and the like. If no writing be allowed to be
plain, and intelligible, till all men be agreed in the
ienfe of it, or till it be impolfible that a man, that
fets his wits at work, mould be able to find any colour
for the wrefting it to another fenfe than that which
was meant by the author ; then farewel all plainnefs
and perfpicuity in any' writing: Nay, not only fo, but
farewel ail plainnefs in any fpeeches, or declarations^
that are made by word of mouth. So that this objec-
tion will as much difterve the caufe of the church of
Kome, who would have tradition^ and the authority
of the pope for their rule of faith % as it will differve
aur
to common People. 59
our caufe, who pretend to be governed by the fcrip-
tures.
But I would afk, Why doth any Roman prieft,
when he hath to deal with a proteftant, and would
bring him over to their communion ; I fay, why doth
he endeavour to convince him, from the fcriptures, of
the erroneoufnefs of our religion, and the neceility of
believing and prac~tifmg as their church teacheth ?
Why doth he labour to prove, by texts of fcripture,.
thofefeveral points which they would bear us in hand
are nccejfary to be believed^ and which yet we deny, as
tranfubilantiation, for mftance, and the fupremacy of
St. Peter, and the like ? Doth not every man among
them that proceeds in this way, for the convincing of
proteftants (and yet they all make ufe of this way) plain-
ly acknowledge by this very proceeding, that all thofe
points that are necefTary to be believed or practifed,.
are fufEciently plain in the fcripture ? And that even,
an unlearned man is capable of understanding them ?
For certainly, no man ever endeavour'd to prove a
thing to another, but bv fomething, which he thought
the perfon he would prove it to, would readily ap-
prehend, and fee the force and evidence of. This is
therefore a conceflicn, that he doth in his own con-
fcience believe the fcriptures to be fufficiently plain^
at leail in all necefTary points, even to ordinary un-
derstandings.
II. But to proceed to our fecond enquiry, which is5,
Whether from this point,, that there are in fcripture
things hard to be underftood, we can reaionably draw
fuch a conclufion as this, That therefore there is a ne-
ceflity that Chrift mould have left in his church fome
vifible infallible judge, to whom all chriftians fhou!d>
refort, for the interpreting fcripture ?
This
60 The Scriptures not. to be denied
This indeed is a conclufion, which the Roman-
catholics would draw from St. Peter's proportion in
my text : And for any thing I know, it is as good an.
argument for the infallibility of the bifhop of Rome,
as any they produce. But however, let us examine
what ground there is for drawing fuch a confequence.
i . In the ftrft place, where is the force of the ar-
gument ? Some texts of fcripture are hard to be un-
derrtood ; therefore the bifhop of Rome is infallible :
or therefore there mulr. be fomewhere a vifible autho-
rity, to which all chriftians mould refort, for the in-
fallible declaration of the fenfe of fcripture : And fince
no man pretends to fuch an authority, but the head
of the church, of Rome, therefore in him it is to be
prefum'd it is lodged, But why doth it follow that,
becaufe fome fcriptures are hard, therefore there is
need of an infallible interpreter of all fcripture ? What
is it that doth connect thefe two proportions toge-
ther ? If indeed all fcripture had been hard to be un-
derftood, and not only fome things in it; or if thofe
things in it that are really hard to be understood, had
hQen (o neceliary, that a man could not go to heaven.
without understanding them ; if either of thefe things
had been true, there would have been fome colour for
the drawing fuch a confequence as this. But fince,
■on the one hand, all that is neceffary to be believed'
or praciifed, in order to falvation,, is fufticiently plain
in fcripture without fuch an interpreter; and on the
other hand, whatever is difficult in fcripture, is not
necefTary to be underftood : It plainly follows, there
is no need of any infallible interpreter at all, becaufe
we may underftand all things needful in the fcriptures^
without fuch an interpreter,
2. But
fo common People. 61
2. But fecondly, if God had meant to have efta-
blifhed a ftanding viable infallible authority in the
church for declaring the fenfe of fcripture, it cannot
be doubted, but he would in thofe fcriptures have-
plainly told us fomewhere or other ; and not only for
but have given us fuch particular accounts and' de-
scriptions of the perfon veiled with that authority,
that all christians in all ao-es might have known who
he was, and where he lived ; that fo they might be
able to make application to him at all times, as there
was occafion. But now there is not a word of this in
the whole fcripture, but a perfect filence, both as to
the authority itfelf, and the perfon, or perfons, in
whom it is lodged. So far are the fcriptures from
giving us the leafr. intimation, that the bifhops of
Rome are fet up by God, to be the infallible declarers
and interpreters of the fenfe of fcripture to all the
chriftian world, from generation to generation, and
that confequently in all difputes concerning the mean-
ing of any paffage in- the Bible, we ought to have re-
courfe to that fee -, I fay, fo far are the fcriptures from
this, that it doth not in the leaft appear from them5
that God hath appointed any means at all of that kind,
for the coming to the knowledge of the fenfe of fcrip-
ture. There is na mention of any infallible judicato-
ry in the whole chriftian world, erected by our Lord
Jefus for this purpofe, and much lefs of the court of
Rome being that judicatory.
If our adverfaries would convince us of either of
thefe things, they maiflr bring other kind of proofs
than thofe words of our Saviour, Tu es Petrus^ thou
art Peter ^ Matt. xvi. 18. and Pafce oves. feed my Jheep^
John xxi. 16. and Dabo iibi claves> &c. / zv ill give
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Matt, xvi. rq*
62 The Scriptures not to be denied
For thefe do make no more to the bufinefs we are
fpeaking of, than this expreffion, Hie funt duo gladiiy
here are two /words, Luke xxii. 38. doth to the prov-
ing the pope's temporal jurifdiction over all chriftians,
as well as his fpiritual ; or than God's ?naking two
great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the
lejjer light to rule the night, Gen. i. 16. doth to the
proving that the pope muft confequently be above the
emperor.
3. But thirdly, fo far are we from being directed by
God's word to apply ourfelves to any vifible judge,
much lefs the bifhop of Rome, for the underftanding
hard texts of fcripture, that it doth propofe quite ano-
ther method to us for that purpofe. The method
which the fcriptures themfelves do provide, for the
coming to a right knowledge and underftanding of
them, is plainly this, to read them carefully, to exa-
mine the things fpoken of, to compare one thing with
another, and to judge of all according to the analogy
of faith ; to ufe all 'the prudent means and helps that
may further us in the knowledge of the truth, to pray
to God for wifdom, to confer with one another, efpe-
cially our fpiritual guides, and above all things, to free
ourfelves from luft and paffion, and all other prejudi-
ces, and prepofTeffions ; and to come with an honeft
and humble mind, well difpofed, both to receive the
truth, and to practife it. For it is the upright man
that God will guide in judgment, and thofe that are
gentle, to them will he teach his way. The fecret of the
Lord being with them that fear him, and to fuch only
he hath promifed to Jhevj his covenant, P,f. xxv. 14. 12.
9. Thefe are the means which the Bible prefcribes
for the coming to the knowledge of God's word, and
thefe are the rational proper means of attaining to
I truth
to common People. 63
truth of any kind, and for receiving benefit by any
books j but moft all, proper for thofe kind of truths,
and thofe kind of books, we are now fpeaking of.
But is not this a quite different thing from giving
up ourfelves intirely to the conduct and dictates of ari
unerring judge ? Or when we are intangled in any dif-
ficulty, to have no more to do, than to afk the opi-
nion of him that fits in the infallible chair, and to ac-
quiefce in it, whatfoever it be ? Thefe two ways are fo
different from one another, and indeed fo inconfiftent^
that no man who finds the former laborious way of
reading, and examining, and judging, of proving all
things, and trying the fpirits, and the like, recom-
mended in fcripture, will or can be eafily convinced ,,
that the latter ihort expeditious way of appealing to
the bifhop of Rome in all controverted cafes, was
ever fo much as thought of when the Bible was
written.
Far am I, by what I have now faid, from endea-
vouring to weaken or undermine the rights of eccle-
fiaftical authority. We do readily acknowledge, that
every chriftian church in the world has a right and
authority to decide controverfies in religion, that da
arife amongft its members, and confequently to de-
clare the fenfe of fcripture concerning thofe controver-
fies. And though we fay, that every private chriftian
hatha liberty left him of examining and judging for him-
{d^ and which cannot, which ought not to be taken
from him ; yet every member, every fubjecl: of a church,
ought to fubmit to the church's decifions and declara-
tions, fo as not to oppofe them, not to break the commu-
nion, or the peace of the church upon account of them,
unlefs in fuch cafes, where obedience and compliance
is apparently finful, and againft God's laws.'
Bui
64 ^he Scriptures not to he denied
But then, what is this to the pretences of the
church of Rome ? Every national church hath as full
an authority in this matter, as the church of Rome.
And befides the authority which we afcribe to every
church, and to the church of Rome among others 9
doth not imply a power of determining controverfies
infallibly, fo as to oblige all chriftians to receive and
believe their determinations as the very oracles of
God. For we fay, that no one man, nor any fociety
of men among chriftians, no, not a general council,.
is infallible, or free from poiTibility of error: But we
only fay, that every church hath power fo far to de-
termine differences that arife among its members, and
to oblige them lb far to compliance, as to be able to-
preferve peace and unity and communion in itfelf.
4. In the fourth and laft place, it is an idle thing to
talk of the neceflity of an infallible expounder of
fcripture upon this account, that fome things in fcrip-
ture are hard to be underftood ; was there nothing to-
be faid againft it but only this, that tho' the Roman-
catholics pretend, that there is in the church fuch an>
infallible judge, and hath been always fince Chrifi's
time, and that that judge is the bifhop of Rome; yet
for all that* the christian world hath not for fo many-
ages received any confiderable benefit (if indeed any
at all) from this infallibility, as to the clearing of dif-
ficulties or filencing difputes that have been among chri-
ftians concerning the fenfe of fcripture. We do indeed
heartily acknowledge, that we have received great be-
nefit, and abundance of light for the expounding of fe—
veral texts of the Bible, from the hiftories, and do-
ctrines, and practices of the univerfal church of Chrift,.
and from the writings of the fathers, and other eccle-
fiaftical authors in all ages (fome of which writers
I Eiay
to common People. %
nlay perhaps have been bifhops of Rome ;) this I fay*
: we readily grant and contend for. But in the mean
time it is a quite different thing from a fingle man, or
a multitude of men, interpreting fcripture by a divine
power and commiffion, and in an authoritative and in-
fallible way : That which we fay is, That as obfcure'
anddifficult as the fcriptures are in many pafTages, and
as plenary a power as the popes have had in theclearingr
fuch obfcurities, and untying fuch difficulties, yet the
world to this day hath feen no effe&s of this power
in that kind, hath received no benefit from it, in or-
der to the clearing of dark texts ; but all the texts that
were obfcure before, are fo ft ill, for any authoritative
interpretation that any pope hath given them. And
this alone is enough to fpoil all the Romifh pretences-
of the neceffity of an infallible judge, to expound the
fcriptures where they are obfcure. And thus much
on our fecond enquiry upon this point.
III. 1 come now to the laft, which is this : Whe-
ther the difficulty and obfcurity that is to be met with-
in the fcriptures, and their being liable on that ac-
count to be wrefled and perverted by unlearned mid un-
stable men, be a fufficient ground to debar the people
from the ufe of them. This is indeed the Romifh
glofs upon this text. Hereby it is very plain- -(fay the
tranflators of Rhemes in their note upon this text) that
it is a very dangerous thing for fuch as be ignorant, and.'
for zvild-ivitted fellows to read the fcriptures. ( VidL
Rhemifh teftament.) And they commend the wif-
dom of the council of Trent, which hath taken care
to forbid the common reading of the bible, except to-
fuch particular men, as mail have exprefs licence there-
to from their ordinary. On the contrary, our do-
ctrine is, That no lay-perfon that can read, ought to
be
66 The Scriptures not to be denied
be difcouraged from reading the holy fcripture, and
much lefs forbidden it ; but rather advifed and per-
fuaded to the frequent reading of it : Only he mould
be directed in the reading of it, and moft ferioufly
cautioned, that he do not turn that wholefome food
he may there meet with into poifoii, by his wicked
mifufe of it.
But let us take this matter a little into examination.
Tliere are in the fcriptures fome things hard to be under-
flood. Therefore (fay they) the people mvfl not read
them. But is this fair dealing with the people ? Be-
caufe fome things are hard to be underftood, muft
they therefore be deprived of the benefit of the plain
things that are there, and which are incomparably
more than the hard things are ? Or, becaufe there are
fome things hard to be underftood, muft therefore the
key of knowledge be taken from them ? Muft they
be debarred the means and opportunities of under-
{landing as many of thofe things as they can?
Well, but it is further faid, That ignorant and un-
flable men, when they read the fcriptures, are apt to
wreft them to their own deftrudtion, and therefore
the fcriptures mould be kept from all fuch, juft as we
keep weapons from children, for fear they mould hurt
themfelves with them. To this I anfwer : If indeed
the fcriptures were of no more or greater ufe to lay-
men than edged tools are to children, and if there was
the fame danger that laymen would do mifchief to
themfelves by reading the fcriptures, as there is that
children would hurt themfelves, if the ufe of knives
and fwords was permitted to them; I grant there
would be fome reafon to conclude, that the Bible ought
to be as far removed out of the people's way, as wea-
pons
to common People. 6y
pons are out of the way of children. But there is no
fuch maatter.
i. For firft we fay, That every one of the people,
be he never fo ignorant, is capable of receiving great
advantages and benefits by reading the fcriptures, or
hearing them read -, for they are the means which God
hath appointed for the ?naking us all wife unto falva-
tion. They are the instruments by which we come to
the knowledge of the chriftian religion.
2. Nay, there is a great deal more probability, that
an ignorant man that comes with an honeft mind to
the reading or hearing of the fcriptures, will put them .
to a good ufe, and learn fome things by them, and go
away better from them, than there is danger that he,
fhould pervert them and go away worfe. It is true,
moft readers or hearers, when they have done all they
can, will be ignorant of the meaning of many texts
of fcripture ; nay, and it is very likely they will mi-
ftake and mifconftrue not a few : But then we fay
there is no great harm in this, either to themfelves or.
others. For every miftake in the fenfe of a text of
fcripture, is not a wrefling of the fcripture , and much
lefs a wrefling it to a man's own dejlruclion. For
wrefling the fcripture^ is interpreting the fcripture to
ferve a man's own private turn ; and wrefling them to
his own dejlruclion^ is forcing them to declare in fa-
vour of fome wicked unchriftian doctrine that he hath
efpoufed, or fome wicked unchriftian practice that he
lives in. So that, tho' a good man, nay, perhaps every
good man is now and then miftaken in the meaning
and application of the fcriptures, yet none but a bad
man can wrejl them9 efpeciaily wrefl them to his own
dejlruclion.
3. But
6% The Scriptures not to be denied
3. But thirdly, how liable foever the fcriptures are
to mifconftruclion, and what bad ufe foever fome men
may make of them for the broaching of herefies, or
the making or continuing fchifms in the church,
which are the proper instances and effects of wrejiing
- the fcriptures ; yet all things confide red, it is more
for the good of the world, that the ufe of them mould
be allowed to all perfons (upon account that all per-
fons are capable of receiving benefit from them, and
mojl in all probability will) than it is for the good of
the world, that the ufe of them mould be generally
forbidden, (upon account that here and there fome
perfons do wreft them, and abufe them to their own
mifchief, and the difturbance of the church.) There
is nothing that God hath made, or contrived, or ap-
pointed, but is capable of being abufed ; and too many
there are that will and do abufe it. But is it therefore
better upon the whole, that every good creature of
God mould be laid ande (at leafl as to the common
ufe of it) becaufe it is thus liable to be abufed, and
fome men here and there do mifchief to themfelves
and others, by thus abufing it ? Certainly no. For by
this rule of reafoning all learning, all arts, all books
in the world, as well as the Bible, and all preaching
and praying in public ; nay, thofe creatures of God,
which he hath made for the fupport and delight of our
very natural lives ; I fay, all thefe things upon this
principle muft be forbidden, at leafl to the multitude
and generality of mankind.
Thefe things, I think, may be fufficient to fhew
the unreafonablenefs of the popifh pofition which we
are now fpeaking of. But I defign more upon this
argument than barely vindicating the doctrine of our
church from the popifh exceptions y I would, if it
were
to common People. 6g
were pofftble, convince you, not only of the lawful-
.nefs, but of the obligation that is incumbent upon
■all forts of men, moft diligently and ferioufly to apply
themfelves to the frequent reading of thofe holy
books.
And in order to that, I would reprefent this to your
£onfideration, viz. That this bufinefs of diligently
reading the fcriptures, is a thing recommended to us
both by the fcriptures themfelves, and by the practice
and advice of the moft ancient and moft holy chri-
ftians, and by the reafon of the thing itfelf. And
Whoever doth difcourage or difcountenance this in any
vone, doth act in oppofition to all thefe.
I. Firft of all, it is recommended to us in the fcrip-
tures themfelves. This may be fufficiently gathered
from the command of God, in the fixth of Deut.
ver. 4. Hear O Ifrael, Sec, The zvords vjhich I corn'
mand thee this day, Jhall be in thy hearty and thou
Jbalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and Jhalt
talk of them when thou fittejl in thine boufe9 and when
thou walkeft by the way, and when thou lieji down, and
when thou rifejl up ; and thou Jhalt bind them for a ftgn
upon thine hand, and they Jhall be as frontlets betweenthine
eyes : And 'thou Jhalt write them upon the pojls of thinehoufe9
anion thy gates, ver. 6, 7, 8, 9. By what words now
could God more emphatically fignify to his people,
that it was nis pkafure, that all forts of men among
them, unlearned as well as learned, mould thorough-
ly acquaint themfelves with the word of God, than
he hath done by thofe expreffions ? If any one fay that
this only concern' d the Jews, with reference to the
law of Mofes, but fignines nothing to us chriftians ;
I anfvver, that the reafon of the precept will concern
us as much or more than it did them, For if, when
God
jo The Scriptures not to he denied
God delivered his law to Mofes, which was but a car-
nal temporary law, he did yet give fuch a charge to the
Ifraelites, that every foul of them mould continually
exercife themfelves in reading and learning this law,
and teaching it to their children; can we imagine
that lefs is expected of us chrifcians, with reference to
that everlafting fpiritual law of the gofpel, that law by
which alone all men are to expect falvation, which
our Lord Jefus and his apoftles firft revealed by word
of mouth, and then took care that it mould be con-
veyed down to us by the fcriptures of the New-tefta-
ment ? No certainly, if it was their duty to read the
word of God which they had ; to meditate upon it,
and to be fo well verfed in it, that it mould be as fa-
miliar to them as the moil ordinary things they ufed ;
as familiar as if it had been wrote on the doors of
their houfes, or the gates of their cities \ then certainly
we chriftians are under as great an obligation to ac-
quaint ourfelves as familiarly with that word of God
which we have, and which was delivered by a greater
prophet than Mofes was, and which is of far greater
concernment to the world.
But to come to our Saviour and his apoftles. Did
our Saviour, when he preached to the Jews, difcou-
rage any of them in his days from reading the fcriptures?
So far from that, that he exhorts all of them fo to do,
bidding them fearch the fcriptures , for in them they ex-
petted to have eternal life ; and they were they that tejli-
fiedofhim. John v. 39. And St. Paul makes it the great
commendation of Timothy, that from a child he had
known the fcriptures ; zvhich, faith he, are able to make
a man wife unto falvation. 2 Tim. iii. 39. And fo far
were the Pereans from being blamed or checked, that
when St, Paul preached the chriftian religion to them,
they
to common People. j i
they did not barely rely upon his authority, but did daily
acamine the fcriptures ^ and enquired whether his doclrine
did agree with them or noy (Acts xvii. u.) that they
are much applauded for it in the A£t,s of the apoftles,
and accounted more noble than thofe of <TheJJalonica9
becaufe they did fo. Nay, the eunuch ofCandace queen of
the /Ethiopians (Acts viii. 27.) that read the fcriptures (as
hehimfeif confefTed) without any means of underftand-
ing them, yet was this his over-diligence (as it might
be accounted) fo far from being imputed to him as a
fault, that God Almighty made it the means and the
cccafion of his converfion to chriftianity. For upon
this his reading (tho* without knowledge) God fen t
Philip to him by a miracle, who did fo effectually ex-
pound what he read, as to make a profelyte of him
to Jefus Chrift before he parted from him : So ready
is God to afford his affiftance to all thofe that ufe the
means that he hath appointed, tho' they be under never
fiich difadvantageous circumftances.
It is true, in all thefe paffages that I have quoted,
the fcriptures that are here mentioned, are meant of
the fcriptures of the Old-teftament ; and there is good
reafon for it, for in truth there were no others then
extant, the fcriptures of the New-teftament not being
then wrote 3 and therefore it is an idle thing to expect
a precept out of the New-teftament for the reading
of the New-teftament, when the canon of it was not
yet rimmed. But for all that, the reafon of the texts
I have named will hold as ftrongly for our reading
the New-teftament, now that we have it, as they did
for the reading of the Old at that time. Did our Savi-
our command the Jews to fearch the fcriptures of the
Old-teftament, becaufe they teftined of .him, and were
the means by which they might be convinced that he
was
y>2 The Scrip lures not to be denied
"was the true Meffiah ? And will it not be a duty as I
much incumbent upon us to fearch tire fcriptures of f
'the New-teftament now, fmce they are the means that
God hath appointed both for the conveying down to
us the do£trine of the gofpel, and the evidence of
the truth of it? Were even the fcriptures of the
Old-teftament in thofe days able to make a man wife
unto falvation f And are not the fcriptures of the Old •
and New-teftament together, much more able to make
us in thefe days wife unto ialvation ? Was k Timothy's
commendation that from a child he had known the writ-
ings of Mofes and the prophets P and will it be any dif-
fjaragement to us grown men, that we exercife our-
selves in the ftudy of what was taught by Chrift and
his apoftles? Laftly, was God fo ready to affift a
pagan even in an extraordinary way, when he con-
/fcientioufly read the prophets, thoJ without probabi-
lity of underftanding what he read ? And can we
think that he will deny his alliftance, and bleifing,
and grace, to us in an ordinary way, when we read
the gofpel of Chrift, and are in a good meafure in a
capacity of underftanding it and receiving benefit
from it ?
2. But enough of this. I defire in the fecond place
it may be confidered, what the fenfe of the primitive
and beft chriftians was as to this matter. How did they
pra&ife and advife as to peoples reading of the fcrip-
ture ? Why every body that is in the leaft verfed in
the hiftories of thofe times, knows what a mighty
value all the chriftians of the early ages fet upon
the Bible, above all other things. They joyfully
heard it read in their publick affemblies, and they di-
ligently read it, and ftudied it, and meditated upon it
in their private houfes. They would, feveral of them,
have
to common People. 73
have it read to them, even while they were taking their
ordinary food. They took care not only to read it,
but to get feveral portions of it by heart. They Ln-
ftructed their young children in it ; and inftances we
have of thofe that both knew the fcriptures and en-
quired into the {enfc of them, even from their child-
hood. In thofe days, as St. Jerom tells us, c any one
* as he walked in the fields, might hear the plowman
c at his hallelujahs, and the labourers in the vineyards
6 finging David's pfalms/ And the fame father tells
us, 6 that of thofe many virgins that lived with Paula
* (a famous devout lady in thofe days) it was not al-
4 lowed to any of them to be ignorant of the pfalms,
* or to pafs over one day without learning feme part
' of the fcripture.' And to fuch a degree were the
women of that time {killed in the fcripture, that Julian
the apellate lays it as a charge, as a matter of accusa-
tion againft the chrifrjans. Laltly, fuch a venera-
tion had the chriftians in thofe days for the Bible, that
they efteemed and prized it above any thing in the
world ; and would rather part with their lives than de-
liver it up to- the pagan ©iiicers that came to demand
it of them. .And whoever did deliver up their Bibles^
were always accounted as apoftates.
And left any one fhould fufpeet that this diligence of
theirs, in reading the fcriptures, was rather an effect of the
peoples forwardnefs to meddlewith things above them,
than anything they were advifed and directed to by their
fpi ritual guides, there are fumcient proofs to the contrary.
The devout people, in thofe days, were not more forward
to read and learn the fcriptures, than the bifhops and
guides of the church were to exhort them to it, and en-
courage them in it. St. AugufUn thus fpeaks to the peo-
ple, * Think it notfufficient that ye hear the fcriptures
Vol. VII. E * in
74 ^M Scriptures not io be denied
i in the church, but alfo in your houfes at home, either
* read them yourfelves, or get fome other to read to
c you.' Origen faith, 6 Would to God we would all
* do as it is written, fearch the fcriptures.' St. Chry-
foftom fays to the people, c I admonifh you ; I beg
* of you to get books. And again : Hearken to me
4 ye laymen : ye men of the world. Get ye the Bible,
* that mod wholefome remedy of the foul. If ye will
fi do nothing elfe, yet at leaft get the Nevv-tertament,
6 the gofpels, St. Paul's epiftles, and the A£ts of the
* apoftles, that they may be your continual teachers.'
Laftly, fo far was that father from confining the ufe
of the Bible to men in holy orders, that he doubts not
to affirm, 4 that it was as neceiTary to be read by lay-
i men, as by thofe who were profefTed monks. Nay,
6 if we will believe him, much more neceiTary : ' For
thefe are his words, c Ye think the reading of the holy
4 fcripture belongeth only unto monks, whereas in
fc truth it is much more neceiTary for you than for them.'
We fee then that in thofe days, when chriflians lived
much more holily and purely than (it is to be feared)
they have done fmce, there was no check given to
any man's reading the fcriptures ; but on the contrary
all the encouragement imaginable. It was not then
thought, that ignorance was the parent of devotion,
or that the fcriptures were too dangerous to be trufted
in the hands of unlearned ordinary perfons. It w3$
not then imagined, that reading the Bible was the way
to make men heretics, or fchifmatics, or any way re-
fractory either againft the laws of Chrift, or the laws
of the country where they lived. But on the contrary,
they took it to be the bed expedient in the world to
make men good chriftians, and peaceful fubjecls, and
hearty lovers one of another -} and accordingly they
did
to common People. 75
did advife, they did exhort, they did encourage every
man, as he had an opportunity to be frequent, and di-
ligent, and ferious, in the reading and ftudying of this
beft of books, the deareft pledge that we have vifible
among us of the love of God, and the moft effectual
inftrument to promote virtue and goodnefs, and uni-
verfal chriftian holinefs in the- lives of men.
3. And very great caufe had they thus to think of
the holy fcriptures, and thus to recommend them to
the careful perufal of every chriftian. For in the
reafon of the thing (which is the third and laft point
we are now to fpeak to) the holy fcripture, above all
.other books in the world, do recommend therafelves
to the diligent ftudy of every man that would be a
good chriftian. Of all books in the world they can-
not but be judged, of conftdering perfons, to be the
fineft, the nobleft, and every way the moft ufeful and
profitable for all orders, and degrees, and fexes, and
ages, and conxlitions of chriftians to fpend their days
in the reading- and meditation of. For here, and
here only, we have the meafures of all God's wifdom
and knowledge in the redemption of the world by our
Lord Jefus, difcovered to mankind. Here only we
have the authentic declarations of God's mercy to us,
and of the terms and conditions upon which we are
to expect everlafting faivation from him. Here it is
from whence we are to fetch both the matter of our
faith, and our evidence for the truth of it. Here are
the fountains from whence we are to draw both th#
knowledge of our duty, and directions for the pra&ifing
of it, and comfort and fupport in and after we have
pracftfed it. Here are contained the invaluable pro-
mifes that God hath made to his fervants in Cbrift
Jefus, and the unfpeakable encouragement he hath
E 2 given.
76 'The Scriptures not to be denied
given to all penitent and returning Tinners. Here are
thofe affectionate invitations, thofe pathetical and
hearty perfuafives of God to men to oblige them to
love him, and to be eternally happy, that do make
good men amazed and aflonimed at the infinite conde-
fcenfions of the divine goodnefs. And here are thofe
ftrong, thofe powerful, I may fay, thofe irrefiftible mo-
tives, to be good, to be happy, to love God, to love vir-
tue, to love our own fouls, that one may as much be
filled with wonder and aftonimment that any human
creature can be fo fottifh, and flupid, and infenfible, as
not to be vanquifhed thereby, to become fo holy and
happy as God would have them to be. In a word,
here are all things that are either needful, or ufeful,
or delightful to a good man, and all things (as far as a
book can have them) that may prevail with one that is
not cood. to become fo.
And judge now, whether thefe things confidered,
the Bible be not a book fit to be read and fiudied by
all forts of perfons. Fit did I fay ? That is too little :
Is it not necefTary ? Is it not an indifpenfible duty ?
Doth not every man who hath opportunity, both fin
againflGod, and neglect the eternal concernment of
his own foul, if he is remifs and carelefs in this
matter £
Let me therefore ferioufly exhort all of you to be
diligent, to be conftant in converfing with the holy
fcriptures. Let it be the care of your lives, and the
delight of your minds to read them, to think of them,
to confer about them, to let every one about you feel
the effects of that love and efteem and zeal you have
for them. Teach them to your children, and your
fervants \ recommend them moft heartily to all that
you have influence overs fpeak of them always with
3 great
to common People. '*ff
great reverence, and hear them read with humility
and attention.
Which that we may all do, and receive the benefit
of To doing, let us join in putting up our prayers to
God in the words of our liturgy, being the collect: for
the feccnd week in Advent, with which I conclude.
Bleffed Lord tvho has caufsd all holy fcripiure
to be written for our learnings &c.
E 3
S E K.*
The number of the facraments afcertain-
ed. Of the church. The onlyfcrip-
ture notion of it. Wherein confifts the
unity of the catholic church. Reflec-
tions thereupon.
i Cor. xii. 13*
For by one fpirit we are all baptized into one
body^ whether we be Jews or Gentiles \ whe-
ther we be bond or free^ and have been all
made to drink into one fpirit.
H E meaning of thefe words will appear to
every one that will mind the argument
which the apoftle is treating of in this chap-
ter. The point that he lays down is this,
That though there be great variety of conditions and
'functions among chriftians, and tho' likewife there
was great variety of gifts and powers in thofe days be-
llowed upon men for the difcharge of thofe functions ;
yet
Of the Churchy &c. 79
yet all thefe feveral forts of chriftians, thus feverally
gifted and qualified, did but make up one fociety 5
and all the gifts and graces beftowed upon them, were
wholly in order to the public and common benefit of
that fociety.
This, I fay, U the point that the apoftle here en-
deavours to poiTefs his readers with a fenfe of. And
accordingly in the verfe before the text, he illuftrates
it by fuch a fimilitude as would reach the apprehenfions
of the meaneft perfon he fpoke to. As the body, faith
he, is one, and hath many members, and all the mem-
bers of that one body, being many, are one body : fo alfo
is Chrift : that is, fo alfo is the chriftian church ; fo
alfo is Chrift and all christians. Chrift is the head,
and all chriftians throughout the world are the mem*
bers : and all together do make one fociety ; one cor-
poration. Or, as the fame apoftle exprefTeth it in the
1 2th of Rom. 4, 5. As we have many members in one
body, and all the members have not one office : fo we be-
ing many are one body in Chrift ^ and every one -members
one of another.
This is St. Paul's proportion. And for the further
clearing and confirming of it; he doth in the text
(hew, that it was the bufinefs and defign of both thofe
facraments which our Lord appointed in his church,
to unite all chriftians, by the means of the Spirit, to
Chrift Jefus, and to one another, and fo to make
them one body. By one fpirit, faith he, we are all
baptised into one body, whether we be fews or Gen-
tiles ; whether we be bond or free ; a?id have been all
made to drink into onefpirit. As if he had faid : The
defign of our baplifm is by the influence of the Spirit to
incorporate all believers in one fociety, of what nation?
or of what condition foever they be j whether Jews or
E 4 Gentiles^
£o Of the Church,
Gentiles, bondmen or freemen. They are all, by
being baptized, enter'd into ChrifVs church, and made
one body : they become members of Chrift, and mem-
bers one of another. This, I fay, is done by means
of that one Spirit which animates and enlivens that
whole body, and gives ftrength and nourifliment to
every part of that body. And as this is the defign of
cur baptifm, fo it is alfo the defign of the other facra-
ment wherein we partake of the cup of the Lord ; for
there alfo we are made to drink into one Spirit. Our
eating that bread, and drinking of that cup (he ex-
prefies only one of them, but he means both ) I fay,
that is the means which Chrift hath appointed for our
receiving the continual influences of the Holy Spirit,
by which the union that is between Chrift and his mem-
bers is preferv'd and maintain'd.
This is as plain an account as I can give of the mean-
ing of my text. And now if any one afk what defign
I mean to purfue in this text, what purpofes I would
apply it to? I anfwer, That this text will ferve to fe-
veral good purpofes, viz. for the clearing feveral points
that it is fit we mould all be truly informed in.
I. I name thefe three : Firft of all this text will
give us" good help towards the afcertaining the true
number of the chriftian facraments, about which the
churches are divided.
II. Secondly, This text will help us to give a plain
and true account of a confiderable article of our faith ;
and that is the unity of the catholic church, which is
here afTerted.
III. And thirdly, This text will fhew us the way
that was ufed in the primitive church, as to the peoples
receiving the facrament, viz. that they did not only
partake of the bread, but of the cup too, The facra-
ment
and number of its Sacraments. 8 1
ment was adminiflred in both kinds to all the faithfuL
For St. Paul here fpeaking of this facrament, calls it a
drinking into one fpirit. As elfewhere in the fcripture,
the Lord's fupper is expreffed by breaking of breads
without naming the diftribution of the cup, ( from
whence fome would form an argument, that the faith-
ful did then only receive the bread) fo in this text the
fame Lord's fupper is exprefTed by drinking of the cupr
without naming the giving of the bread. From whence
.we may certainly draw this conclufion, That the one-
was as necefTary to the people as the other. And they
may as well fay, that where the cup is only men-
tioned, there was no bread broken; as they can fay*
that where the bread is only mentioned, there was
no cup given : and confequently wherever it happens
in any text, that for fhortnefs fake (or for fome a!Iu-
fion that fuited better with the fcope of the writer) one
kind or fpecies of the facrament only is exprefly men-
tioned, yet the whole facrament* in both the kinds o£:
it, is,, in all thofe texts, to be understood..
I begin with the firft of thefe points :
i. This- text doth fairly infmuate to us the true num-
ber of the chriftian facraments.
It is plain, that the apoftle in this text doth ex-
prefly fpeak of the chriftian facraments : and it is as-
plain, that tw7o facraments, and no more than two*
doth he here mention. And thefe two are the twa<
facraments which the church of England, with alL
primitive antiquity, doth own for the only facraments
of ChriiTs inditution, i/7Z. Baptiim, and the Supper of
the Lord. Thefe two now, it is certain and evident
that they are facraments, truly and properly fo called ;.
that is to fay, they are outward figns and pledges of an
inward grace that goes along with them, and they were:
E 5 in?-
S 2 Of the Church,
inftituted by our Lord Jefus in the moft exprefs terms
that can be ; and by the very words of the inftitution
it appears, that they were defigned to be of perpetual
obligation even to the world's end. But as for other
facraments, or more facraments than thefe, there is a
deep iilencc both in this text, and throughout the
whole New-teftament. And yet the council of Trent?
which is the rule of the Roman church, hath, befideS
thofe two, made five more ; and fo ftriclly hath that
council obliged all of that communion to receive and
own feven facraments, that it hath pronounced " a
" curfeagainft all thofe who fhall affirm that there are
*c either more or fewer facraments inftituted by Chrift
*c than feven, or who mall affirm that any one of thofe
44 feven are not truly and properly facraments."
This we muff, needs think is a very hard and fevere
ampofition upon the faith of chriftians -, efpecially,
when we can ihew, that fome of thofe feven cannot,
in the nature of things, be true and proper facraments :
and beiides, when we do confidently challenge any
man of that communion to produce any one council,
any one father, nay any one fingle writer for eleven
hundred years alter Chrift, that faid or taught there were
juft fQVQii facraments, and neither more nor fewer, of
Chriit/s infhtution. Peter Lombard, by all that we
can find, (who lived in the 12th century, and was the
father of thefchoolmen) was the firft who averted this
precife number. But can the bare opinion of fuch a
man, ac fuch a diitance from the primitive church, be
of authority enough to ground an article of faith upon,
nay, and to make it damnable for any man to believe
otherwife ?
But I know it will be laid, That the ancient fathers
do give the name of facraments to marriage, to orders,
1 to
and number of its Sacraments. 83
to penance, and to all thofe' other things which are
now by the church eftablifhed for facraments of Chrift's
appointment. Why, be it fo ; yet this doth not come
home to the bufinefs. For if they will pretend to make
a true and proper facrament of every thing that fome
fathers have applied the name of facrament to, they
may with as much reafon make feven and twenty facra-
ments as feven. At this rate they muft make faffing,
and praying, and weeping, and warning the difciples
feet, and crolling of themfelves, .and vowing virginity «>
and many other fuch things ; I fay, they muft make
all thefe to be facraments, as well as the five they have
been pleas'd to obtrude upon us ; becaufe indeed every
one of thofe things is by fome father or other called by
the name of a facrament. Nay, the icripture is a fa-
crament, and the whole religion of Chriif. is a facra-
ment, in the language of fome of the fathers. But now
for facraments truly fo called, and in that notion in
which both they and we do undeiftand the word,
namely, for fuch outward yifible figns, or fy mbo Is, or
•elemciits as were appointed by Jefus Chriif, for the
conveying fpiritual grace to all that did worthily par-
take of them : I fay, in this notion of facraments, it
will be lard to find more, either va fcripture or in the
fathers, than thofe two we are ail agreed upon, Baptifm
and the Lord's fupper. St. Cyprian, I dare fay,,
thought of no more, when he tells us, ci That then
men may be thoroughly fanclified, and become the
children of God [ft utroque facra?nenio nafcantur) if
they be regenerated by both the facraments." If he
had believed more facraments than two, it is impoffible
he fhould have exprefled himfeif in this manner.. St.
Auftin likewife hath a memorable paflage to this pur-
pofe : " Our Lord Jefus Chrift, fays he, hath knit
chrifHans
$4 Of the Church ,
chriftians together with facraments (which is exactly
the fame thing that is here faid in the text) which fa-
craments, faith he, are moft few in number, moft eafy
to be obferved, moft excellent in fignification, and
thefe are Baptifm and the Lord's fupper." And in an-
other place he tells us, " Hcsc funt ecdefia genuina
facr amenta. Thefe are the two facraments of the
church." But if after all this, the church of Rome
will, without the authority of the fcriptures, without
the fuflrage of any one fmgle author for above a thou-
fand years together, nay againft the reafon of the
thing, and againft the fenfe of the primitive fathers,
iiiake it an article of faith, and neceflary to falvation,
that every chriftiari mould believe that Chrift ordained
feven true and proper facraments of perpetual ufe in the
church, and all conferring grace to the worthy receiv-
ers of them ; whereas, by all that appears, he ordained
but two of this nature ; who can help it ? This only
we muft needs fay, that (he aftumes a vaft authority
over mens confcience. But whether it be reafonable
without better evidence, to fubmit our judgments and
consciences to that authority, let indifferent perfons
judge.
2. But I have fpoke enough of this point. Let us
again look over the text, and take up fome other. We
are all, fays the apoftie, baptized into one body, and
made to drink into one fpirit. From thefe words this
now may be obferved in the fecond place :
We have here a plain declaration and afTertion of an
article which we profefs to believe in our creed, and
that is the unity of the church. In the creed which
we repeat every day, we own the belief of the catho-
lic church. And in the creed which we repeat on
Sundays and holidays, we do more explicitly declare
the
and number' of its Sacraments. 8g
the onenefs of that church, in thefe terms, / do be-
lieve in one catholic and apojiolic church. If now we
took no other guide but the holy fcriptures for the
meaning of this article, it would appear as plain a bu-
finefs as any in the whole Bible. But as the different
interefts of men have been concern' d in the interpre-
tation of it, it is become an intricate thing, a bone of
contention, a fountain of I know not how many eon-
troverfies. But the reafon hereof is very evident.
Men, through their over-great love of themfelves, and
favour to their own party, have no mind to let the
church of Chrift lie in common, as without doubt our
Saviour intended it, but every one will be engroifing
the whole church to themfelves, and to thofe of their
communion. And this hath put their wits upon the
rack oftentimes for the devifing and inventing God
knows how many marks and tokens whereby to di-
ftinguifh the true church from falfe and pretended
churches : though yet it is evident enough to any by-
flander, that the marks they give of the true church,
are rather contrived to fuit with the quality and genius
of that church they appear for, and whofe caufe they
would ferve, than taken from the holy fcripture, or
collected by the meafures of right reafon.
But let us fee what account the holy fcriptures, and
efpecially the fcripture of my text give of this church,
this one church, about which fo much noife is made.
It is plain from the holy fcripture, that it was the
defign of our Lord Jefus to deliver to mankind the
whole will of God, fo far as their falvation was con-
cerned in it : to reveal to them all that was needful,
either to be believed or pra&ifed, in order to their fu-
ture happinefs. All thefe things thus delivered and re-
vealed by him, we call the chriftian religion : and this
religion
F6 Of the Church,
religion was taught to the world partly by himfelf, and
partly by his apoftles ; and this religion was put into
writing by infpired men, and is now extant among us
in the books of holy fcripture. Furthermore it was
our Lord's defign, that all who fhould embrace this
religion of his, mould be united among themfelves and
with their head Chrift Jefus, and fo become one body
by the means of one Holy Spirit which mould actuate
and influence them ; and this is that which the apoflie
faith, There is one body, and one fpirit. They are
therefore, one body, becaufe they are all acted and en-
liven'd by the fame Spirit, derived from the head Chrift
Jefus. And further, in the laft place, it was our
Lord's intention and defign, that all believers, all that
profeiled his religion, mould be admitted to the parti-
cipation of this Spirit, and fo be made members of this
common body, by the facrament of baptifm : and like-
wife that they ihculd be continued and maintained in
this membership, and receive continual influence from
that fame Spirit by eating and drinking in the facrament
of the communion. And this is that which is told us
In the text, that we are all by one fpirit baptized into
one body, and made to drink into one fpirit.
Taking now thefe things along in our minds, we
may eafily form a true notion of the church : that no-
tion I am confident which the fcripture meant to give
us of it, when it fpeaks of the church as one. The
church, according to thefe principles, can be nothing
eMe but the whole multitude of thofe perfons, whether
Jews or Gentiles, that do embrace and profefs the
chriftian religion, and are joined together by the means
of the facraments in one body or fociety under one
head Chrift Jefus ibis, I fay, is the general notion
of the church. But it will not be araifs, if I treat of
this
and number of its Sacraments: ty
this matter a little more particularly, that every body
iirmy fully underftand the nature of that church which-
;we all profefs to believe, but yet are fo much divided
about. And I am confident we (hall find enough in
the holy fcripture to fatisfy all our fcruples about this
bufinefs.
The flrft time that our Saviour makes mention of
his church, was before he had actually any church in
the world > for he fpeaks of it as a thing future. It was
upon St. Peter's public confeffion of him to be the
Chrift, the Son of God. Upon this, fays our Saviour,,
Verily I fay unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this
rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell/hall
not prevail againjl it, Matt. xvi. 18. Afterwards*
when he was leaving the world, and afcending up into.
heaven, he gives particular orders to his apoftles about
the building of this church which he had promis'd*
And this was the commiffion he gave them, Goy fays
he, and make difciples of all nations, haptifing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghojl y and teaching them to cbferve whatever I have
commanded you. And lo I I am with you alway, even-
unto the end of the world, Matt, xxviii. 19,, 2C.
This commiifion of our Saviour we may properly1
enough ftile the charter of the church ; and mind, I
pray, what is contained in it. Our Saviour here de-
clares the extent of his church, and of what perfons he
would have it conftituted. It was to extend through-
out all the world, and to be made up of all nations.
He here declares by whom he would have it built and
conftituted, viz. the apoftles. He here declares upon
what grounds he would have it conftituted, or upon
"what conditions any perfon was to be received into it,
viz, their becoming the difciples of Jefus Chrift, and
under-
88 Of the Church,
undertaking to obferve all that he had commanded.
He here likewife declares the form or the method by
which perfons were to be admitted into this church,
and that was by being baptized in the name of the Fa-
ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft : and
laftly, he here promifes the perpetual prefence of his
Holy Spirit, both to affift the apoftles and their fuc-
ceflbrs in the building and governing this church, and
to actuate and enliven all the members of it.
Well then, Chrift before he left the world, promifed
that a church mould be built, and he gave a commiilion
for the building of it. Let us now fee how this pro-
mife was fulfilled, how this commiilion was executed,
and how this church was actually built and conftituted.
Now as to this, we find in the fecond chapter of the
Acts, that in purfuance of a commiilion given to the
apoftles, they, with the reft of the difciples, met to?-
gether at Jerufalem on the day of Penteccft, and then
and there did the Holy Spirit (as Chrift had promifed*
ver. i.) defcend upon the apoftles, and endued them
with the power of fpeaking all languages, that fo they
might be enabled to execute their commiilion of
preaching to all nations -, and then and there did St..
Peter, ver. 6. (to whom Chrift had promifed the ho-
nour of laying the foundation of this church for his fo
generous a confeflion of him ,) then, I fay, did St.
Peter, (ver. 14.) begin to preach the religion of Jefus
Chrift to the Jews, (as we find he afterwards did to
the Gentiles, Acts x.) exhorting them to repent and
to embrace the chriftian faith, and to be baptized, every
one of them in the name of the Lord Jefus, for the rer
miffion of their fins, ver. 38. And the event of this
fermon was, that they who gladly received his zvords
were baptized, and the fame day there were added unto
them
and number of its Sacraments. Sg
them about three thouf and fouls , ver. 41. The fame
chapter further tells us, That thefe being all added to
the number of the difciples, continued ft edf aft ly in the
apoftWs doclrine and fellow/hip. } and in breaking of
bread, and in prayer ^ ver. 42. And then.it follows,
That the Lord added to the church daily , fuch as Jhould
be faved^ ver. 47.
Here is the firft time that we have mention in the
New-teftament of a church actually buiit and confti-
tuted ; and we fee plainly, That that church was con-
ftituted by fuch officers, of fuch members, and with
f fuch rites and ceremonies, as Chrift had ordered in
' his general charter before fpoken of. All thofe per-
fons, of what different language or condition foever,
that upon the apoftle's preaching, did embrace the
chriftian religion, and were baptized 5 I fay, all thofe,
together with the apoftles who preached and admini-
ftred to them, made up one church. And they ex-
ercifed this church member-fhip by an outward pro-
feffion of the chriftian religion (which is there called
the apoftle's doclrine) and by joining with the apoftles
in the facrament of the Lord's fupper, (which is there
called breaking of bread) and in public prayers. And
to this church thus conftituted were daily added others,
till in procefs of time this church, thus inconfiderable
at firft, grew to that bulk and thofe dimenfions which
we fee it hath at this day.
It is true, the firft apoftolical church was not then
ftiled by the name of catholic or univerfal church ;
(1 fay catholic or univerfal, for both thefe words mean
the fame thing, the difference only being, that the one
word is Greek, and the other Latin) but it was fimply
called the church, or the church of God, without any
other epithet. And there was good reafon for this.
For
§o Of the Church,
For this church, as you fee, was at that time confined I
only within the walls of Jerufalem, and for fome time
after within the natron of the Jews : but afterwards,
when this church increafed fo that many cities and
many nations were incorporated into it, each of which
were properly churches of Chrifr, then, in contra-
diftindlion to thofe particular churches, came up the
ftile and the title of the catholic Or univerfal church.
So that whenever we name or fpeak of the catholic
church, we mean by that word, the whole multitude
of christians throughout the world, that are embodied
into one fociety under their head Chriit. Jefus, by bap-
tifm, and the profefiion of the chriflian faith, and the
participation of the common means of falvation. But
when we fpeak of a church of any fingle denomina-
tion, as the Greek church, the Ethiopic church, the
Roman church, the church of England, and the like,
we mean only fome particular church which is but a
part of the church catholic or univerfal. The catho-
lic church is but one, and can be but one 3 becauf*
all the chriilians in the world belong to it : and that is
the church which we profefs to believe in our creeds.
But particular churches are many, as many as the na-
tiens are that own and profefs the chriitian religion :
nay, as many as are the diocefes into which chriftian
people are distributed under their feveral bifhops. But
yet all thefe churches, whether they be diocefan, or
provincial, or national, they are all parts of the uni-
verfal church, juft as our feveral limbs and members
are parts of our body.
Thus I am fure I have given you the true notion of
the church which the fcripture always intends, when it
mentions the church in general ; when it fpeaks of the
cwrch as the body of Chrlft 5 when it fpeaks of the
church
. and number of its Sacraments. g i
urch which Chrifi purchafed with his blood ; when it
leaks of the church into which we are baptized ; when
fpeaks of the church to which all thofe glorious fro-
ilfes are made of the forgivenefs of fins, of the perpetual
defence and affiftance of the Holy Spirit ; of the gates
■ hell never prevailing againji it, and of everlafting fal-
ation in the world to come. I fay, that church is al-
ways meant of the whole company of christians dif-
erfed over all the world, that profefs the common faith
j (though perhaps none of them without mixture of er-
: brs) and enjoy the adminiftration of the word and fa-
raments under their lawful paftors and governers :
11 thefe people, wherever they live, or by what name
joever they call themfelves, make up together that one
>ody of Chrifr. which we call the catholic church.
And thus having, as I hope, done fomething towards
he fixing and fettling the notion of the church (fo far
Us our text is concerned in it) my next work is (before
[ difmifs this head) to make fome refieclions and re-
parks upon what has been faid, with reference to fe-
deral points which we have occafion gfven every day to-
bear of and to think of; and which it highly concerns
us very well to fatisfy ourfelves about. The points
which I think moil: natural, and at this time mod need-
ful to be treated of, with reference to this argument of
the catholic church, are thefe that follow ; which I
Ichufe to propofe rather by way of enquiry, than by way of
dogmatical aiTertion, that we may be the more fairly led
to a juft and equal difcuilion and examination of them.
And the firit enquiry {hall be this, Whether upon a
true {fating of the notion of the catholic church (as I
have endeavour'd now to do it) that queftion which the
Romanifts infift fo much upon when they tamper with
. our people, and upon which they lay the main ilrefs of
their
gi Of the Church,
their caufe, viz. In which part of the world, or in
which of the different communions of Chriftendom the
only true church of Chrift is to be found ? I fay, whe-
ther this queftion of theirs be not quite out of doors ?
Whether it be not a very ufelefs impertinent queftion,
as being grounded upon a falfe notion of the catholic
church ? A notion which is not only repugnant to the
fcriptures, but abfurd in itfelf.
If they would draw all the matters in difpute be-
tween us into one point, and that point fhould be with
relation to the church, the queftion upon which we
were to join iflue fhould not be put thus, Which of all
the pretended churches is the true church ? or, Which
of all the divided communions of Chriftendom, is that
communion in which only we may have falvation ? (for
there are many true churches, and many communions
in which falvation may be had :) but this ; Which of all
the feveral churches that are in the world, is the mod
pure and orthodox ? or, which of all the feveral com-
munions in Chriftendom is mod agreeable to the laws
of Chrift, and in which a man may moft fafely, and
with the leaft hazard, venture his falvation ? Now
if the queftion be thus put, we will join iflue with them
whenfoever they pleafe. But I forget, I am not now
anfwering of queftions, but propofing them.
In the fecond place, my next enquiry upon this ar-
gument fhould be this : Since they as well as we do
allow, that baptifm doth admit men into the catholic
church, whether they be not obliged, upon their own
principles (owning our baptifm to be valid, as they ali
do) to acknowledge us of the church of England to be
true members of the catholic church ?
My third enquiry fhall be this : Whether, by all
the marks and tokens that are given of the church in
the
and 'dumber of its Sacraments. g 3
rhe holy fcriptures, the church of England may not
be proved to be both a true and a found part of the
catholic church ?
My fourth enquiry fhall be this : Whether our
charity to the church of Rome, in owning them to be
a true church, whiift they are fo uncharitable to deny
us to be fo, be any good argument that their commu-
nion is fafer than ours ?
My fifth enquiry mail be this : Whether there be
any colour of reafon, that the church of Rome, and
they who adhere to her communion, fhould engrofs
to themfelves the name of the catholic church, or that
they who are out of her communion mould be thought
no catholics ?
My fixth enquiry mall be this : Allowing, as we do,
churches of different communions to be parts of the
catholic church, and allowing chriflians in thofe feveral
I churches to be capable of falvation, Whether it can
juftly from thence be infer'd, that it is an indifferent
i matter, as to a man's falvation, what church or what
communion he is of, fo long as he is but of any one ?
and, Whether every one is not bound, upon pain of
damnation, to adhere to that church, which he is con-
vinced is mod agreeable to the word of God ; and to
forbear communion with that church in which he can-
not communicate without either profefiing to believe
fome things which he cannot believe, or praclifing fome
things which he is convinced God's laws have forbid-
den him ?
Thefe are all ufeful enquiries : and 1 fhall hereafter*
as I have opportunity, endeavour to give as plain an
■anfwer to them as I can.
In the mean fime\ eonjider what ye have beard^ &c.
JW Aj it,"
A difcuffion of the queftion which the
Roman Catholics much infift upon with
the Proteflants, viz. In which of the
different communions in Chriftendorn,
the only true church of Chrifl is to be
found ?
With a refutation of a certain Popifli argument
handed about in M. S. in 1686.
The 2d fermon upon the following Text.
1 Cor. xii. 13.
Tor by one fpirit we are all baptized into one body,
whether we be Jews or G entiles > whether we
be bond or free , and have been all made to drink
into one Jpirit.
H E plain meaning of thefe words is (as I
told you) this : the defign of our baptifm
is, thro' the influence of the Spirit which
is then given, to incorporate all believers
in one fociety, of what nation or condition foever they
bet
J. refutation of a Popijh argument, Sec. 95
•e. They are all, by their being baptized, enter 'd
nto Chrift's church, and made one body, They be-
:ome the members of Chrift, and members one of an-
other. And this, I fay, is done by means of that one
Spirit, which animates and enlivens that whole body,
ind gives itrength and nourifhment to every part of it.
And as this is thedefign of our baptifm, fo it is alfo
:he defign of the other facrament, wherein we partake
pf the cup of the Lord ; for there alfo we are made to
drink into one fpirit. Our eating of that bread and
drinking of that cup, (he expreiTes only one of them,
but he includes both) I fay, that is the means which
Chrift hath appointed for our receiving the continual
infiuence of the Holy Spirit, by which the union wThich
is between Chrift and his members is preferv'd and
maintain'd.
Three points I told you this text did fairly lead us
to difcourfe u^on. Firji, The number of the chri-
stian facraments, which feems here to be adjufted and
afcertained ; and they are Baptifm and the Lord's fup-
per. Both thefe are here exprefsly mentioned -, but no
other, neither in this text noj in any other pailage in
•the New-teftament ; nor do we find that the ancient fa-
thers thought of any more ; nor doth it appear that
any writer of the church, for eleven hundred years to-
gether, did ever give that precife number of the facra-
ments which the church of Rome now doth.
The fecond point to be infifted on from this text,
; is the unity of the catholic church into which we are
baptized.
And the third point, the right that the laity have
;, by Chrift's inftitution, and the apoftle's practice, to
I the cup of the communion 3 fince it is plain by this
text,
96 A refutation of a Pop'fb argument
text, that all the faithful did, in the apoftles times,
drink into one fpirit, as well as eat into one fpirit.
The two former of thefe points I treated upon the
laft Lord's- day : and as for the firft of them, I {hall
not repeat any thing of what I then faid $ but as for the
fecond, becaufe I have not yet done with it, it is ne-
cefTary that I give you fome general account of the no-
tion of the church and its unity, which I then endea-
voured to eftablifh ; that fo you may the better go along
with me, as to thofe points wherein I (hall be con-
ccrn'd at this time.
The fum of what I faid concerning the church and
its unity, was this : That whenever we name or fpeak
of the catholic church, (if we will take the fcripture
notion) we rauft mean by that word, the whole mul-
titude of chriftians throughout the world that are im-
bodied into one fociety bybaptifm, and the profeflion
of the chriftian faith, and the participation of the com-
mon means of falvation. But when we fpeak of a
church of any fingle denomination, as the Greek
church, the Ethiopic church, the Roman church, the
Englifti church, or the like, we mean only fome par-
ticular church, which is but a part of the church ca-
tholic or univerfal. The catholic church is but one,
and can be but one ; becaufe all the chriftians in the
world do belong to it. But particular churches are
many, as many as the nations are that own and profefs
the chriftian religion; nay, as many as are the diocefes
into which chriftian people are diftributed under one
bifhop. But yet all thefe churches, whether they be
diocefan, or provincial, or national, or patriarchal,
they are all parts of the catholic church, juft as our fe-
deral limbs and members are parts of our body ; and
taken
handed about in M. S. in 1686. 97
taken all together, they do make up that fociety which
we are baptized into.
This I largely proved to be the true notion of the
church which the fcripture always fpeaks of, when it
mentions the church in general -, when it fpeaks of the
church as of the body of Chrijl ; when it fpeaks of the
church which Chrijl pur chafed with his blood ; when
it fpeaks of the church to which all thofe glorious pro-
mifes are made of the perpetual prefence and afjiftance
cf the Holy Spirit , and of the gates of hell never pre-
vailing againji it. I fay, that church is always meant
of the whole company of chridians difperfed over all
the world, who profefs the common faith (though per-
I haps none of them without mixtures of error) and en-
: joy the adminiftration of the word and facraments un»
j der their lawful paftors and governors. All thefe peo-
ple wherever they live, or by what name foever they
\ ftile themfelves, whether the church of Egypt, or
Ethiopia ; whether of the eaftern or weftern commu-
nion; whether churches unreformed or churches of
the reformation ; all thefe fingly and feparately taken,
< are but parts of the catholic church ; but taken all to-
gether (as none of them are to be excluded) they do
make up that one body, which the apoftle in my text
fpeaks of, when he faith, we are all by one fpirit bap-
tized into one body, and are all made to drink into one
fpirit.
And now before I difmifs this argument, my defign
I is to make fome reflections upon, or to draw fome in-
ferences from what has been faid Concerning the church,
with reference to fome points that are debated hotly
between us and the church of Rome.
And the firft thing I (hall infift upon is this : We
may, from what has been faid, be able, not only to
Vol. VII. F give
98 A refutation of a Popifh argument
give an anfwer to that queftion which the papifts have
continually in their mouths when they tamper with
our people, viz. Where that church is which we pro-
fefs to believe in our creed, but alfo to difcern how ut-
terly impertinent that queftion is to their purpofe, not-
withstanding the great ftrefs they lay upon it.
The ufual method, when they would feduce any
from our church is this : They will tell you, that
Chrift can have but one church here upon earth. If
you acknowledge this, as you certainly muft, they will
tell you that you need not trouble yourfelf with en-
tring into that ocean of particular difputes which are
between the proteftants and them, when the main, and,
in truth, the only queftion is, where that church is
which we profefs to believe in the two creeds ? You
declare there to believe one catholic and apoftolic
church : and you own likewife, that out of that church
there is no ordinary means of falvation. What need
now have you to trouble yourfelf about any more, than
merely to fatisfy yourfelf in which of the communions
of Chriftendom this church is to be found, and having
found it to join yourfelf to it.
I muft needs fay, that the waving all other dif-
putes, and putting the controverfy upon this iiTue, is a
very compendious way, and will fave you a world of
trouble, which otherwife you muft neceflarily undergo
in common methods of enquiring into, and coming to
the knowledge of the truth. For if you can but fatisfy
yourfelf, as they would have you, about the true church
(which is their church) they will take care to fatisfy
you about all other things whether you will or no.
For after this difpute is over, you are not permitted to
difpute any more, becaufe having found the true church,
you have found an infallible one, and if the church be
infallible,
handed about in M. S. in 1686. 99
infallible, you muft be concluded by her determina-
tions in all matters whatfoever.
Well, but let us examine what great weight and
moment there is in this queftion, that the being fatis-
fied about it mould put an end to all other particular
difputes. Methinks this queftion is juft fuch another
queftion as this. Since there is but one city of Lon*
don, but abundance of ftreets, and lanes, and alleys in
it, fome of which are well built, others ruinous and
ready to tumble j fome are healthful and free from
contagious diftempers, others perhaps are vifited with
the plague ; now in which of all thefe ftreets, lanes,
and alleys, is the true city of London to be found I
Why fure any man in his wits will think this an idle
queftion. For whatever difference there is as to thofe
particular places, upon account of fome of them being
much more fafe than others, and fome of them more
convenient or more uniform than others, yet they are
all of them parts of the fame city, but none of them,
fmgly taken, is that city. Now juft fuch an anfwer as
this is to be given to the queftion before us. The
queftion is, where that church is to be found which we
profefs to believe in our creeds ? To this queftion we
give a plain anfwer from the principles we have before
laid down. That church which we believe in our
creeds is the catholic or uni venal church of Chrift,
into which all chriftians are baptized : and therefore
being thus catholic or univerfal, it is not to be confined
to England, or to the reformation abroad ; it is not to
be confined to Rome or thofe of her communion ; it
is not to be confined to Greece, to Syria, to Armenia,
to the Eaft -Indies, to Ethiopia, to Egypt ; but it is in
all thefe places, becaufe in all thefe places there are
chriftians profeiling the common faith of Chrift, and
F 2 partaking
ioo A refutation of a Popijh argument
partaking of the fame common facraments under their
lawful paftors and governors ; tho' yet, in communion,
many of them are divided one from another. So that
in all theie places, and in every place under heaven,
where there are fiich people, there is a true church of
Chrift, but not the whole church of Chrift, becaufe
the whole church which we call the catholic church is
made up of all thofe churches. Only this it is fit
we mould take notice of, that tho' in all thefe places
the church is to be found, yet the church, or that part
of the church which is found in fome of thofe places,
is far more pure., and holy, and apoftolical than it is
in other places. And in all the countries where the
church may be laid to be, thofe where the faith is
profeiled according to the church of Rome have the
greateft mixture of errors and corruptions.
And now let any man judge, whether there be any
fuch extraordinary feats to be done by this queftion,
as they would bear us in hand ; nay, whether it be
not wholly impertinent to our bufmefs. For you fee
that, notwithstanding this queftion is anfwered, yet
all the particular difputes between us and the church
of Rome are yet unfettled ; and we are at as great a
diftance from them as ever. Notwithftanding we are
willing to own them to be truly a church, fas we do
all the eaftern and weftern churches,) yet ftill we
dare not communicate with them ; ftill our complaints
remain againft their ufurpations, againft their impofing
God knows how many new doctrines for articles of
faith, which the fcriptures and the primitive church
never taught -, againft their worfhip of images, and in-
vocation of faints, of having the public fervice of God
in an unknown tongue, and depriving the people of
half of the facrament, and other fuch things. We
fay
handed about in M.S. in 168 6. 101
fay they are truly a church, that is, a part of the ca-
tholic church, becaufe we think they retain all the
fundamentals of the chriftian religion, both as to doc-
trine, and facraments, and government. But yet we
cannot be of their communion, unlefs they will either
withdraw their unlawful unfcriptural impofitions from
being terms of their communion, or fatisfyus (which
they never can do any intelligent man) that thefe new
things which they impofe and we except againft, are
are really agreeable to the word of God. So that
you fee the ocean of difputes muft be failed thro', or
elfe we can never come to an harbour.
But it will perhaps be infifted on, as I know it is
by the pretended catholics ; How is it poilible that
there fhould be but one church (as there is but one,
by the acknowledgment of all) and yet fo many diffe-
rent communions among thofe that pretend to be of
that church ? Can all thefe people, thus divided and
feparated, belong to that one body of Chrift ? No
certainly it is but one of all thofe communions that
can be the true church ?
To this I anfwer, It were heartily to be wifhed,
that all who profefs the chriftian religion were of one
communion, as they were at firft. And fure I am,
it is the duty of every particular man, and of every
particular church, to endeavour it, as much as it is
pofiible, without violating faith, and a good confei-
ence. And woe be to them who have been the caufe
or the occafion of fuch difmal rents and fchifms as
are to be feen at this day in the chriftian world ! But
yet notwithftanding, there is no reafon to be ailigned
why churches of different communions may not for
all that, remain truly parts of the catholic church, fo
long as they have thofe effentials of a church which
F3 I
102 A refutation of a Popifh argument
I have fo often named. I grant indeed, that fo long
as thefe divifions and reparations do remain, there is
a criminal fchifm lies at the door of fome party or
other : For certainly by Chrift's laws, the whole ca-
tholic church fhould be of one communion ; and ec-
clefiaftical affairs mould be fo adminiftred among all
people and languages, that every honeft man, when
he had occafion to travel from one country into ano-
ther, even to the reinoteft parts of Chriftendom, might
readily, with a good confcience, join in publick prayers
and facraments with that chriftian congregation which
he found upon the place. So that as the ftate of Chri-
itendom now ftands, we muft needs acknowledge there
is an horrible fchifm, and hath been for many ages
among the churches ; nay, perhaps there maybe more
churches than one that are guilty of this fchifm m
fome degree or other. But ftiil, I fay, thefe fchifma-
tical churches are yet parts of the catholic church,
tho' very corrupt and degenerate ones ; their fchifm
doth no more cut them off from being members of
Chrift's kingdom (fo long as they hold to the foun-
dation) than, for inflance, if it mould happen in Eng-
land, that two families, or two parifhes, or two coun-
ties fhould quarrel among themfelves, and that quarrel
fhould proceed fo far as that they fhould refufe all
mutual commerce and intercourfe, ihould be inhofpi-
table one towards another, and break the king's peace
whenever they met one with another 5 I fay, the
fchifm in the former cafe will no more cut off the
churches concerned, from being members of Chrift's
kingdom, fo long as they retain the faith and wor-
fhip of Chrift Jefus, than the quarrel or breach of
peace in the latter cafe will cut of thofe people from
being the king of England's fubjeclsj or from being
mem-
handed about in M.S. in 1686. 103
members of his kingdom, fo long as they profefs ta
bear faith and true allegiance to his majefty, and own
his laws and government.
It is a plain cafe that there were feparations and
fchifms, and different communions even in the moft
primitive times of chriftianity : Witnefs that great
fchifm that happened in the church of Corinth, which
occanoned two famous epiftles, one from St. Paul,
another from St. Clement to that church. But yet, not
a word in either of thefe epiftles, that the fchifma-
tics were no christians, or out of the pale of the
church.
Within two hundred years after Chrift, there zrofe
a notorious fchifm between the eaflern and the Latin
churches, about the time of celebrating Eafler. And
there the pope of Rome (as they have always been
ready at fuch turns) excommunicated the churches of
Afia for difagreeing with them about that point. Here
now the catholic church was divided into two com-
munions ; but will any man in his wits fay, that ei-
ther of thofe communions was cut oft from the ca-
tholic church, when at that time there was in both
of them fo many glorious martyrs and confefTors ?
But if either of them did forfeit their title of being
catholics, it will be eafily gueffed which of them it
was. For certainly the Afiatic churches were in no
fault, fince they did but obferve their ancient ufage,
But it was the Roman church that was the fchifmatie?
in (o groundlefsly excommunicating them.
But then I have this further to add upon this point,
that though, as you fee we do affert that churches
of different communions may, for all that,, belong to
the true catholic church, yet it is not for the ferving
our own caufe that we do affert this. The church of
F 4 Eng-
1 04 A refutation of a Popijh argument
.England doth not need this hypothecs for the juftify-
ig herfelf to all the world ; but we take this hypo-
efts, and fay all this, out of the great charity and
tendernefs we have to the church of Rome, and thofe
other great bodies that differ both from them and us,
though much more from them, than they do from us.
But if indeed it mould prove true, which the pre-
tended catholics of P^ome fo much contend for, viz.
That among all the different communions in Chriften-
dom, there can but one of thofe communions be the
true church, and all the reft are out of the catholic
church $ I fay if this mould be true, I declare, that if
I had yet my communion to chufe, of all the commu-
nions in Chriitendom, which have the face of a church,
the communion of the church of Rome, as it is now
eftablifhed, fhould be the laft that I fhould join my-
felf to : And my reafon is, that if either herefy or
fchifm deftroy a church, and cut off the members of
it from the body of Chrift, I fhould more fufpecl: that
communion upon both thefe accounts, than any other.
As for herefy, the notion of it is not fo fully agreed
upon. But if it be herefy to teach doctrines of reli-
gion that are not true, and praclices in religion that
are not fafe (to give it the moll favourable term we
can ;) if it be herefy to declare new articles of faith
as neceffary to falvation, -which neither Chrifr, nor his
apoftles, nor the primitive church ever declared as fuch;
then I fear the Roman church hath gone as far towards
the making herfelf guilty of herefy, as any of the fe-
veral communions of Chriftendom, even the moft er-
roneous of them. But as for fchifm, me hath gone
a great way further. We are all agreed, that fchifm
is an unneceffary caufelefs feparation from a church,
with which we were bound to communicate. Tak-
ing
handed ahout in M. S. in 1686. 105
ing it now for granted, that all the churches in the
world are bound to be of one communion, yet if re-
parations do happen, (as God knows there are abun-
dance) that church only is guilty of fchifm, which is
the caufe and occasion of that feparation. If we de-
fire to communicate with all churches upon the gofpel-
terms, but fome churches will not let us communicate
with them upon thofe terms, but impofe other terms
which the laws of the gofpel doth not allow ; here is
indeed a fchifm, and a rent between thefe churches :
But which of them is the fchifmatic ? Certainly not
we that would own them as brethren, and join with
them in prayer and facraments \ but they that will
not let us join with them, but upon fuch terms, as we
cannot with a fafe confcience fubmit to.
And this, I fear, is the cafe between the church of
Rome, and thofe other churches that are of a different
communion* The church of Rome taking in all the
kingdoms and nations that adhere to her at this day,
is not by all computation above one fourth part (if fo
much) of that company of men which profefs the faith
of Chrift, and have the facraments, and all other ef-
fentials of a church. Yet all thofe churches are di-
vided from her. Here now is a fchifm, and a fearful
one. But the queftion is, at whofe door the fin lies ?
Why truly, it is to be fear'd, that church which hath
impofed new terms of communion, which were never
heard of in the primitive times ; that church which,
taking advantages of the fmallnefs of fome churches,
and the diftrefles of others, hath erected an univerfal
monarchy over the chriftian world, and inftead of con-
tenting herfelf with being a part of the catholic
church, will needs be the whole, and excommunicate
all thofe that refufe to yield obedience to the biihop
F 5 ©f
ic6 A refutation of a Popife argument
of Rome, as the vicar of Chrift, and the only vifible
head of the church ; I fay, this ufurping, monopoliz-
ing church is, in all reafon, the fchifmatic ; and not
thofe other churches that are fhut out of her commu-
nion.
Well, but there is one argument goes about, which,
notwithftanding all we have faid, doth irrefragably
prove, that the church of Rome, and no other, is that
true vifible church that Chrift is to have always upon
earth.
I have met with it in a little manufcript paper : And
It is faid to have done fome feats. I will fpeak two or
three words to it, and fo conclude this point.
The argument is this: <c If you deny the church of
*c Rome to be the only true vifible church, then I defire
*c that you will be pleas' d to jhew me a vifible church
4C oppofing the church of Rome in thofe doclrines where-
fiC in you differ from them, and praclifing hi thofe points
4fr as the church of England doth, from the time of
6i Chrift till the reformation. For if there was any
€C time wherein there was no chrift ian church, but that
C£ in communion with the fee of Rome, it muft, I con-
*c ceive, be granted, that that is the true church, or that
*c Chrift had no vifible one upon earth"
This is the paper, word for word, leaving out the
preface, about which we have no controverfy ; and
the force of it lies in thefe two points : We cannot
jhew a vifible church that hath, from Chrift' s time t&
the reformation, oppofed the church of Ro?ne in thofe do-
Strines and praclices zvherein we differ from her \ and,
There was a time when all chriftian churches were in?
communion vjith the church of Rome. The conclufion
from hence is, That therefore theprefent church of Rome
is the only true church of Chrift upon earth.
This-
handed about in M. S. in 168 6t icy
This is as furprifing a conclufion from fuch premi—
fes, as can enter into the mind of a man. Firft of all!
we cannot mew a vifible church that hath,, from.
Chrift's time to the reformation, oppofed the church
of Rome in her pretences j therefore the church of.
Rome is the only true church. Why, fuppofing that:
all the churches of the world had, from Chrift's time
to this, agreed with the church of Rome in all points,,
both of doctrine and practice, yet doth it from thence-
follow, that the church of Rome is the only vifible :
church? Nov not in the leaft: She is frill but a part:
of the vifible church, and the other churches that a—
gree with her are as much parts of it? as fhe. And if;
this be fo, how. can it in. the leaft follow, that when?
churches are divided from, her both in doctrine andi:
practice, fhe is any more the whole vifible church;
than they ? Why are not they as much the vifible*
church, after they are divided, as they were before^,
fuppofing it was her fault and not theirs, that occa-
fioned this divifion and feparation ? And if the vifible-
church can be but in one communion, why are not:
thofe churches that are feparated from tbe church ofF
Rome, the only true catholic vifible churchy and the;
church of Rome no part of it at all, fince it ap-
pears that in this cafe it is fhe that hath caufed.the*
fchifm ?
But that I may fully expofe the fophiftry-of this- ar-
gument to the meaneft understanding, and enable e—
very one to give an anfwer to it, I will put. the wholes
force of it into an obvious cafe;.
The argument is, That if we cannot fhew a vifible-
church diflinct from the Roman, that hath in all times,,
from the beginnings oppos'd the doctrines and practices,
©f the prefent church of Rome, then it will! undeni-
108 A, refutation of a Popifh argument
ably follow, that the prefent church of Rome is the
only vifible church.
Why now, methinks, this is juft fuch an argument
as this :
A father bequeaths a large eftate among his chil-
dren, and their children after them. They do for
fome generations quietly and peaceably enjoy their fe-
veral fhares, without difturbance from each other.
At laft, one branch of this family (and not of the
eldeft houfe neither) ftarts up, and being of greater
power than the reft, and having got fome of the fame
family to join with him, very impudently challengeth
the whole eftate to himfelf, and thofe that adhere to
him ; and would difpofTefs all the reft of the defend-
ants, accounting them no better than baftards, though
they be far more in number than his own party, and
have a far greater (hare in the inheritance. Upon this
they conteft their own right againft him, alledging
their father's will and teftament, and their Jong pof-
ieilion, and that they are lawfully defcended from their
firft common anceftor.
But this gentleman, who would lord it over his
brethren, offers this irrefragable argument for the ju-
fiice of his claim. If, fays he, you deny me and my
adherents to be the fole proprietors of this eftate, then
it lies upon you to {hew, That ever fince the death of
our progenitor, who left us this eftate, there hath ap-
peared fome of the family who have always oppofed
my claim to this eftate. But that you cannot fhew j
and therefore I have an undoubted title to the whole
eftate : I am lord of the whole inheritance.
I do appeal to any man living, whether this plea
would pafs in any court of judicature -, nay, whether
>ny private man? tho' never fo unlearned, can believe
that
handed about in M. S. in i6%6. 10$
that this infolent pretender doth offer any fair reafoa
for the difleifing the coheirs of their inheritance, And
yet this is juft the argument with which thofe learned
gentlemen would perfuade us to give up our birth-
right, to depart from that fhare of the inheritance we
have in the catholic church.
Well, but what will the coheirs that are concerned
fay to this argument ? Why there are three things fo
obvious to be faid to it, that if the perfons concerned
have not the wit to hit upon them, they are fit to
come under the cuftody and guardianfhip of this pre-
tended heir-general. May they not fay to this gentle-
man that makes fo univerfal a claim, — Sir, your claim
was not fo early as the death of our forefather, who
left us this joint-inheritance. Your anceftors and ours
lived a great while peaceably together, without any
clafhing about this eftate ; and we were fufrered for
fome ages to enjoy our own right, without any mole-
flation from you or thofe you derive from : And the
cafe being (o^ there was no need of oppofing your pre-
tences, becaufe you made none. But then, (which is
the fecond thing) when you did fet up for this princi-
pality, and wheedled fome of our family, and forced
others to join with you, you know you were prefently
oppofed by others of our family, who would not fo
eafily part from their rights. You know, that as foon
as ever you made your claim, there were fome that
ftoutly declared againft it, tho* they had not power,
and ftrength, and intereft enough in the world to item
the torrent of your ambition.
But then thirdly, may they fay ; fuppofing it was
not fo 5 fuppofing you had met with no rub in your
pretences (which yet you know you did) ; fuppofing
©ur family were not fo fuddenly aware of the mifchief
that
4lio A refutation of a Popljh argument
that would come upon them from thofe your ufurpa-
tions, as to make a prefent oppofition ; doth now it
follow, that becaufe no oppofition was juft then made
to your pretences, that therefore your pretenfions to
the whole eftate are juftifiable I No, we can prove
they are not fo 5 for it is plain by the Teftament, by
the fettlement of our common father, that we have
as much a right to our parts in this eftate as you have,
or as your anceftors ever had. Tell not us, that you
were not at firft, or that you were not always, oppofed
in your claim : But tell us by what right or juftice
you can pretend to be the fole lord of this inheritance.
Let the will of our common parent be produced, and
that will plainly mew, that we have as much a fhare
in this eftate as you have.
This allegory is fo pat to our bufinefs, and the ap-
plication of it fo eafy to our prefent cafe, that I think
I fhould injure the moft vulgar underftanding, if I fhould
fufpecl: his ability to make that ufe of it which I intend.
And then, fourthly, as for the other thing which-
the paper ufes as an argument of the church of Rome
being the only viable church, namely this, That if
there was any time %vherein there was no chri/iian:
church hut that in communion with the fee of Rome, it
mujl he granted that that is the true church, meaning
the only true church : I fay, if this be any argument, it
will prove a great deal more than the author of the
paper would have it ; for it will prove as ftronglyr
that the Britifh church here in this nation is the only
vifible church of Chrift, or that the church of Con-
stantinople is the only church of Chrift, or that the
church of Alexandria in Egypt is the only true church,
©f Chrift, as it will prove that the church of Rome is
the only church of Chrift,. For if there was any time
whereift-
handed about in M, S. in 1686. 11 £
wherein there was no chriftian church, but what was
in communion with the Britifh church, then, accord-
ing to this argument, it muft be granted, that the Bri-
tifh church is the only true church. If there was a
time wherein there was no chriftian church but what
was in communion with the fee of Conftantinople, then
it muft be granted, that the Greek church, under the
patriarch of Conftantinople, is the only true vifible
dhurch of Chrift ; and fo it may be carried on as to the
church of Alexandria, and feveral other churches yet ir&
being. For whenever that time was , when all thofe
churches were in communion with all other churches
(as I believe it was in the primitive times of chriftiani-
ty) I think it is evident, that the church of Rome was-
as much in communion with the Britifh churches, as
the Britifh churches were in communion with the fee o£'
Rome j and fo as to all the reft. If now the Britifh.
churches, and all other churches being once in commu-
nion with the church of Rome, be a good argument-
that the church of Rome is the only true church, thert
fure the church of Rome, and all other churches, be-
ing once in communion with the Britifh church, is as
good an argument that the Britifh church, and we o£~
the church of England that are how come in their
place, are the only true church. And this,, in truth,,
is all that they get by this argument.
But we are not fo arrogant as to pretend to be the
only true church of Chrift, though I am fure, all
things confidered, we have more reafon to do fo than
they. But we are cofitented to be a part of the ca-
tholic vifible church ; and we wifh they would be fa
too. And we have this comfort, that we can fay we
are a found part of the catholic church, which we
heartily wifh we could fay of them j but to our grief
"we cannot,. 1
2i2 A refutation of a Popijb argument f &c.
I am fenfible I have made a long and a tedious dif-
courfe about this bufinefs of the church: but I
thought it needful to do it (having fo fair an oecafion
given me by my text) that I might furnifh you with
anfwers to thofe people who are fo continually talking
about the church, the true church, the one vifible
church, out of which there is no falvation. This I
am fure of, and I conclude with it ; So long as you
continue in our communion, you are in the commu-
nion of the true church of Chrift, and in an infinite-
ly fafer communion than if you were in theirs. I dare
anfwer for the falvation of all thofe who, continuing,
in our church, do live up to the principles of it ; but
I dare anfwer nothing for them who being brought up
in this church, and having fo great opportunities gi-
ven them of knowing the truth, do yet depart from
it. I pray God they maybe able to anfwer for them-
felves.
I pray God make us all honeft and wife, and then-
I am fure as to our principles we fhall continue the
fame we are now, but as to our lives and conven-
tions we fhall grow much better.
May God of his infinite mercy grant this to us for the
fake of his dear Son Jefus ChriJl—*To whomy &c-
This being the fermon that gave cccafion to the king's
mandatory letter to the bijhop of London to fufpend Dr.
Sharp ; and the bijhop having advijed him to forbear preach*
ing till his majefys difpleafure was removed y he nvas p> e*
vented from proceeding any farther in the examination of
thofe other five queries ivhich he had propofed at the end of
the former fermon^ fo that <we have no more of his conclu*
Jion from this text*
SEH-
SERMON VII.
The Popifh and Proteftant do&rines con-
cerning Confeffion, explained and com-
pared. And the popifh do&rine of
Auricular Confeffion, proved not to be
the dodtrine of fcripture and the an-
tient church.
P r o v. xxviii. 13.
He that cover eth his fins Jhall not pro/per. But
whofo confejfeth tbem, and forfaketh them%
Jball find mercy.
H E S E words contain a very full tho' a
very fhort defcription (and by how much
the fhorter fo much I think the better)
of true repentance ; fuch a repentance as
God would accept : and that firft negatively, in what
it doth not confift, or rather is not confident with it :
and that in the former part of the verfe, He that
cover eth his Jins Jhall not profper. And fecondly, po-
fitively in what it doth confift ; and that in thefe two
things*
i i'4 ^e Popijh and Protejiant
things, .confefling our fins, and forfaking them. IVhofo
confeffeth and forfaketh them Jhallfind mercy.
Repentance, however it may appear to fome as a
{ingle duty, yet m truth it is one full half of all that
the gofpel requires of us. For the whole condition
of the new covenant is comprized in thefe two things,
viz. Repentance towards God^ and faith towards our
Lord Jefus Chrijl ; Acts xx. 21. as the apoftle has de-
clared.
It mufl therefore be of infinite confequence, that
we all be rightly instructed in the nature of repentance,
fince there is fo great ftrefs laid upon it. If we take
falfe meafures in this point, it is as much as our fouls
are worth. And yet as things go in the world, tho*
nothing be more plainly and fully declared in the holy
fcriptures than the nature of this repentance, as to
all the branches of it, fo that no man of but tolera-
ble parts, that will bring an honeft mind along with
him, can eafily mifs of rightly informing himfelf from
thence of all that he is concerned to know about this
duty; yet, I fay, as matters now ftand, there is fcarce
any doctrine of religion more obfeured, more mifre-
prefented, more distorted and corrupted, even to the
great peril of the fouls of men, than this doctrine of
repentance is.
Some men there are who, for the advancing the
authority of the clergy, and the more fully eftabliihing
their empire over the confeiences of men ; as likewife
for the enriching themfelves by other mens fins, and
at the fame time making the confeiences of thofe
that pay for it as eafy and as quiet as may be :
I fay, they have found out God knows how- many
devices as to this bufinefs of repentance, which the
writers of the fcripture never knew of; nay, which in-
deed
doftrines of Confejfton^ compared. 1 15
eed are directly contrary to their fenfe and meaning.
Vnd fuch devices they are too, that at the fame time
hey both perplex the confciences of the more fcrupu-
dus fort of men, and alfo give too much encouragement
o the vices and excefTes of thofe that are loofely given.
The wife man here in the text tells us, that who-
ro confejfeth his fins, and forfaketh them, Jhall find
nercy. This is both plain enough, and home enough ;
and this fame notion of repentance is all along incul-
:ated both in the Old and New-teftament ; and no
Dther but this. Every where a contrite confeflion of
our fins to God, and a forfaking them, are thought
enough to denominate a flnner a true penitent, and
to entitle him to the mercies of God. And on the
other fide, whoever doth not come up to this ; who-
ever doth not both thefe, is not qualified for God's
mercies. The one without the other will not be fuf-
ficient. If a man confefs, but doth not forfake, his
fins are yet upon him ; he is not in the ftate of a true
penitent. On the other fide, tho' a man do forfake
his fins, if he do not confefs them (which indeed it
is hardly to be fuppofed that a man can do;) yet ftill
his repentance is imperfect. It is not that repentance
to which God, in his revelations to mankind, has
made any promife of mercy and forgivenefs. Both
thefe things therefore are necefTary, and where they
do concur, they are all that is necefTary.
But now the prefent doctrines of the church of
Rome concerning this matter of repentance, are quite
of another ftrain, as will appear by thefe three of
them which I mail take occafion from my text to ex-
amine.
1 . Firft of all they teach, That a man is not only to
confefs his fins to God, but he is bound to confefs
them
n6 The Popijb and Protefiant
them alfo to a prieft; otherwife they will not be for-
given him. And when he doth thus make his con-
feflion, he is bound to difcover not only all his moi>
tal fins that, upon ftricl: examination of himfelf, he
can remember, but alfo the circumftances of them.
2. Secondly, whereas it is here faid, that he that
confefTeth and forfaketh his fins, mall, without more-
ado, find mercy ; that is his fins mall be forgiven
him ; they teach quite otherwife : For a man accord-
ing to them, may confefs his fins and forfake them
too, and yet they fhall not be forgiven him, unlefs he
make fatisfacStion for them over and above. They
grant indeed, that upon his confeflion to a prieft, and
receiving abfolution from him, the eternal punifhment
due to his fins is remitted ; but yet there is a very ter-
rible temporal punifhment to be undergone, either in
this life or the next ; which punifhment the fmner can-
not be freed from, unlefs he either in his own perfon,
or fome other for him, do make a compleat fatisfac-
tion to the divine juftice.
3. Thirdly, whereas by the words of our text one
would think, that forfaking of fin was as neceffary to
the finding mercy as confeflion, and that one without
the other would not be available for the procuring any
man's pardon ; they teach quite otherwife (if not di*
rectly, yet by confequence.) For, according to their
definitions, if a man do but devoutly and contritely
confefs to a prieft, and receive his abfolution, he is
prefently put into the ftate of God's favour, fo far as
that he fhall not fuffer eternally for his fins, but at laft
go to heaven j tho' in the mean time he do not forfake
his fins till his dying day : tho', as I faid before, if
he have not made fatisfaction, he muft for a long time .
be kept in purgatory.
Thefe
doSfrines of ConfeJJion^ compared. ny
Thefe are the popifh corruptions and innova-
ions in this matter of repentance that we all com-
ilain of, and think we have juft reafon fo to do..
Vnd thefe opinions and doctrines are not only taught
)y private men among them, but are partly the ex-
>refs definitions of their general council of Trent
which, with them, is authority never to be oppofed
uid contradicted) and partly they are the undeniable
ronfequences^and refults of what they have there de-
seed and declared concerning the facrament of pe-
lance.
Of thefe three points I come to give an account :
i and I begin with their doctrine of confeffion ; which
I am the more defirous to in lift upon, becaufe really
. feveral among ourfelves are apt enough to think that
; ':he church of Rome hath the advantage of us in this
.natter. And it is made a pretence by fome, why they
have left our communion, viz. that in our church they
: want the benefit of private confeffion, which in the
: church of Rome is ftrictly enjoined.
Now my bufinefs is to lay this matter plainly before
Lyou 5 to ftate both their doctrine and ours in this point
[of confeffion ; and then, I dare fay, it will eafily ap-
pear which church is to be preferred upon this ao
' count.
1, Firil, then I mall {hew, how far we of the re-
[formed religion do allow of confeffion of fins unto men.
2. Secondly, what that doctrine of the church of
Rome is, that we find fault with in this matter, and
for what reafons it is juftly blameable.
I. Firft then, I fhall plainly lay before you what it
is we teach as to this matter of confeffing fins to men,
whether priefts or others. All the fins that can be con-
fened will fall under fome of thefe three heads : they
5 are
1 1 8 The Popijh and Proteftant
are either fuch whereby God is offended, and he only;
or they are fuch whereby fome particular man is in-
jured, as well as God offended ; or laftly, they are
fuch whereby fcandal is given to the publick fociety
of chriftians where we live, tho' no particular man
be injured by them.
Now as to each of thefe kinds of fins, let us exa-
mine what confeflion to men is due.
I. And firft of all, there is no doubt but that as to
all thefe fins that come under the fecond head I have
named, that is to fay, all thofe fins whereby we have I
offended or injured our particular neighbours ; there
is no doubt, 1 fay, that we are not .. only bound to
confefs them to God, as being tranfgreffors of his law,
but bound likewife to make fatisfa£tion to our neigh-
bours for the injury we have done to them by them* I
And that both by a penitential confefllon and acknow-
ledgment of them ; and, if that be not fufficient, by
making fuch further reparations as the cafe requires.
This we are bound to do by the natural laws of juftice
and equity: and our Saviour hath fumciently inti-
mated his pleafure as to this in that precept of his, If
thou brin$ thy gift to the altar ', and there rememberejl
that thy brother hath aught again/1 thee, leave there thy
gift before the altar, and go thy ivays,firft be reconciled to
thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Matt. v. 23,
24. In which words he plainly teaches us, that it is
not enough when we have offended or affronted any
perfon, to go and afk God forgivenefs for it, but we
are to go and reconcile ourfelves to him, by acknow-
ledging our faults, and making all fuch reparations, as
the injury requires ; otherwife we are no ways capa-
ble of making our prayers to God for his forgivenefs.
O that we would ail ferioufly think on this ! If we
did,
doftrines of Confejfion^ compared. 119
lid, it would not be poffible for us to offer the leaft:
>rovocation, or to do the leaft injury to any man in
:he world. Or if we were fo foolim, or fo unhappy
as to do it, we mould not be able take any reft till
we had made him fatisfaction. For I account no man
can be able to reft quietly, who is not in a condition
to fay his prayers.
2. But fecondly, as to all thofe fins which come
under the third head I mentioned, viz. Sins, which,
tho' they do not injure any particular perfon, yet in-
jure the public fociety of chriftians, are an affront to
the religion we profefs, and give fcandal to the church;
as to thefe fins, I fay, not only our church, but all
other proteftant churches, do not only allow, but ap-
prove of confeftion unto men ; even a publick confef-
fion ; a confeffion as open as the fins committed were.
For inftance, if any man deny the faith of Chrift,
or go over to an heretical communion ; or laftly, live
in the open practice of any fin or fins that are notori-
oufly repugnant to the laws of Chrifl's religion ; fuch
fins as St. Paul inftanceth in, when he directs the
Corinthians, that, If any man who is called a brother
(that is a chriftian) be a fornicator^ or an idolater ', or
a railer, or a drunkard^ or an extortioner ', with fucb a
one no not fo much as to eat . 1 Cor. v. 11. As to fuch
I perfons as thefe, 1 fay, there is no proteftant church
but doth highly approve, that a public confeffion
fhould be made in the face of the church of thofe
crimes by every penitent ; that by this means fatisfac-
tion might be made to the chriftian fociety which was
fo fcandalized, and the offending party may, as much
as in him lies, undo all the mifchief which his bad ex-
ample had done to his fellow- chriftians.
And
no The Popijb and Proteflant
And this indeed was the ancient practice of the
church of.Chrift, in the primitive times. Such a
courfe was always then taken with fcandalous offend-
ers. If a man was a known evil liver, if, upon ad-
monition, he did not reform his life, he was, without
more ado, oaft out of the communion of the faithful.
And there was no way to obtain his readmiffion, but
by a repentance as public as his fin was. Nay, in
thofe days the offending chriftians, who had ' their
hearts difpofed for repentance, Were as forward of
themfelvesto make this public confeffion, and to right
the chriftian fociety they had injur'da as the church
was to require it of them.
And this is that confeffion we fo often read of in
ecclefiaflical writers, and which they fo much urge as'
of neceffity to repentance, viz. a public confeffion
of crimes, not that private whifpering of fins into the
ear of a confeffor, which the church of Rome hath
now brought into the place of it.
It is true, there is little of this to be (een in our
times. A few foot-fteps are left of the ancient eccle-
fiaflical difcipline, and that is all. 'Whether ever lii
will be reftored or no, God only knows. But it is
the wifh and the prayer of all good men, that it may
be. , Popery firft corrupted the difcipline of the;
church ; and happy had it been for us, if, when our
firft reformers took fo much care to reduce doctrines of;
faith to the primitive ftandard, they had done the fame
as to our difcipline. But perhaps it was not in their'
power. They fufficiently difcover their good-will to
it, in the preface of the commination-office ; where,
having mention'd that There was a godly difcipline in
the primitive church ; that fuch per Jam asjlood convicled
of notorious Jinsy were put to open penance ^ and punifhed
in
hBrines of Confejfion, compared. 1 2 r
in this ivorldi that their fouls might befavedin the day of
the Lord; and that others, admonifh dby their examples^
might be more afraid to offend. They add in the next
fentence, That it is heartily to be wifbed thai this difci-
pline may be rejhr'd. But till that be done, we muit ufe
fuch methods for bringing men to repentance as we can,
3. But thirdly, All proteftants that i know of, do
noc only require acknowledgment and confcflion of
injuries to the injur'd perfon, as neceffary to repent-
knee, and approve of public confeijion of public fins
in the face of the church ; but. even as to private fins,
:iwhereby no particular man nor no fociety is injur'd,
tut only God offended (which is the. third fort of fins
that I mention'd in the mil place ;) I fay, as to thefe,
ttthey not only allow of, but approve of confeilion to
I men, eVen private confefiion to men ; and more efpe-
cially fuch confenidn as is made to thofe who are mi-
ni fters. No one proteftant. To far as we. can judge by
' the public declarations of their faith, is agalnft private
1 confefiion of fins to any good man, much lefs to a mi-
nifter orpaftor. Nay, they arefo far from being againit.
it, that they advife it, and recommend it in fuiidry cafes-
,as a moft excellent inftrument of repentance.
So that the papifts dp very unjuftly traduce and ca-
lumniate the-reforrnation, when. they fay that the pro*
teftants are again ft private confefiion. There is no
fuch thing. There is no proteftant church but gives
it that due efteem and regard that it ought to have.
All that they have done, is to regulate it, to-fet it upon
its true.bafis and foundation j which is done, not by
requiring private confefiion as a thing necefTary, but
by exhorting men to it as a thing highly convenient
in many cafes. In all thofe inftances where - it can be
ufeful, or ferve any good purpofe, it is both com-
Vol. VII. G mended
122 The Popijh and P ret eft ant
mended and ferioudy advifed ; that is to fay, where a
fmner either needs direction and affiftance for the o.
vercoming-fome fin that he labours under; or where
he is fo overwhelmed with the burden of his fins, that
he needs the help of fome fkilful perfon to explain to
him the terms of the gofpel, to convince him from
the holy fcriptures, that his repentance (as far as a
judgment can be made of it) is true and fmcere, and
will be accepted by God ; and laftiy, upon the full I
examination of his irate, and his judgment thereupon, ,
to give him the abfolution of the church. In all thefe
cafes, no proteftant (that undcrftands his religion) is
againit private confeffion. On the contrary, all the,
beft writers of the proteftants, nay, ail the public
confeffions of the proteftants (which give an account I
of their faith) are mightily for it, and do ferioufly re-
commend it. Mr. Calvin hath fully exprefTed their
fenfe as to this point.
" Let every faithful chriitian (fays he) remember,
" that when he is burden' d and afRieted with the fenfe
" of his fms, that he cannot eafe himfelf without the I
" help of others, it is then his duty not to neglect
cc that remedy which the Lord hath prefcribed to him,
" viz. That, for the eafing of himfelf, he refort to
*' private confeffion with his paftor ; and that for the
** gaining comfort to himfelf, he fetch in the affiftance
" of him whofe office it is, both privately and pub-
*' licly, to comfort the people of God by the do-
*4 clrine of the gofpel. But yet this moderation is
*' always to be ufed, that where God hath not laid
*< impofitions, we mould not lay impofitions on our_
** own conferences. Hence it follows, that this pri-
€i vate confeffion ought to be free^ and mould not be
•* required of all, but only recommended to thofe !
" who
doffrines of Confeffion, compared. 123
N who find they have need of it." Thus far Mr.
Calvin ; and in the fame place, where he doth thus
recommend private confeffions, doth he alfo fpeak
>reat things of the benefits of private abfolution, in
jrder to the eafins: and comfortine afflicted confciences.
And this fenfe of his is the general fenfe of the
)roteflants abroad. If there be any difference among
hem, it is, That the Lutherans are more Uriel: in re-
quiring private confefiion than either the French or
Dutch proteftants are.
As for our own church, {lie has direclily given her
judgment in the matter, as we have now reprefented,
viz. in the public exhortation, which is to be read when
iiotice is given of a communion. There it is advifed,
(That if there be any of the congregation that cannot by
\ther means quiet his own conscience, but requireth com-
fort or counfel ; then he Jhould come to fonie dif erect and
\earned minifter of God's ivord, and open his grief ';
,y?at by the ?niniftry of God's holy word he may receive
ffie benefit of abfolution, together with ghoftly counfel
md advice, to the quieting of his confidence, and avoid-
•ng all fcruple and doubtfiidnefs .
This is the doctrine of the proteftants concerning
onfeffion ; and this I think may be juftified to all the
nvorld .
II. But the popiih doctrine in this matter is quite
; )f another ftrain, and ferves to quite different pur-
1 >ofes. Which, what it is, and upon what grounds
r've find fault with it, I come in the fecond olace to
y J.
hew.
The church of Rome, you are to know, have
: nade repentance to be a facrament, viz. the facra-
I nent by which only fins committed after baptifm arc
fo be forgiven. And of thjs facrament of repentance
G 2 they
124 tfke Popijh and Trot eft ant
they have made three parts; i. Contrition for fin;
2. Confeflion to a pried ; 3. Satisfaction. Whoever
performs thefe three things, upon the prieft's abfolu
tion, his fins are forgiven. And all thefe three con
tions (fay they) are necefTary to the obtaining pardon
and reconciliation.
By confeflion, they mean not confeflion to God,
nor confeflion to our neighbour in cafe of injuries,
nor confeflion to the church in cafe of public noto-
rious fins ; but private confeflion to a prieft, which is>
that they call auricular confeflion, becaufe it is whif-
per'd into his ear. This is that confeflion they ma
a necefTary part of repentance, and without which
{fuppofing we have opportunity) fin is not forgiven.
I will give you their fenfe (as near as I can tranflate)
in the words of two of their general councils which
have eftablifh'd it as a law among them. The firft
is, the council of Lateran. There it is order 'd,
46 That every man and woman, after they come to
tc years of difcretion, fhould faithfully confefs all their
" tins privately to their own prieft, at leaft once in,
" the year, and endeavour faithfully to perform the
46 penance that is enjoyn'd them ; and after this they
44 fhould come to the facrament, at leaft at Eafter,
ii unlefs the prieft, upon fome reafonable caufe, da
'' judge it fit for them to abftain at that time. And
*< whoever doth not perform this, he is to be excora-
*' municated out of the church ; and if he die, he is
•* not to be allow' d chriftian burial." Thus the council
of Lateran, very modeftly. But the council of Trenl
goes much farther, and clincheth the bufmefs as ef-
fectually as is poflible ; for they decree that, " Who-
*c ever fhall affirm that this private confeflion to a
«6 prieft was not inftituted by Chrift, and is by divine
" right
doftrines of Confeffion , compared. 125
;C right necefTary to falvation, let him be accurs'd."
The fame council orders that, " All mortal fins which
:i a man, after diligent examination of himfelf, finds
" his confcience to be burden'd with, even thofe that
** are moil fecret, tho' they be only in thought or
" defire, even all thefe are to be repeated to the prieft
u in confeffion ; and not only the fins themfelves, but
¥ alio the circumitances of them, that may change
j" the kind of the fin." And, to bind this the fafter
upon the confciences of men, they made this decree,
that., cc Whofoever mall fay, that in the facrament of
I" penance, it is not by divine law necefTary, for the
*c obtaining forgivenefs, toconfefs all and every mor-
" tal fin, which, after a diligent enquiry, a man
cc can remember, even the moil fecret, together with
" the circumftances that change the kind of the fin ;
' " or fhall fay, that fuch confeffion is only of ufe for
" the directing or comforting the penitent, but is not
■ " necefTary, let every fuch man be accurs'd.5 ' '
This is the plain avow'd doctrine of the prefent
church of Rome, as to confeffion. But we fay it is
a great error introduced into the doctrine of repent-
ance, and of very ill confequence to the fouls of
■ men, as will appear by thefe three following things,
which I fhal'i very briefly reprefent.
1. Firft, They here make a thing to be of Chrift's-
kiftitution, and of neceility to falvation, that hath no
i manner of foundation in the holy fcriptures, either in
• the Old or New-teftament.
If they could but produce one text of the Bible,
\ wherein it did appear that this auricular facramental
confeffion of fins to a prieft was recommended, either
by our Lord, or his apofties ; or one text, wherein
it did appear that it Was practised by any chriftian*
G 3 either
126 The Popifh and Prof eft ant
either of the clergy or laity in any inftance; orlaftly,
one text, whereby it doth appear that it was fo much-
as mentioned or thought on by the holy men of that
time ; I fay, if they could produce any one text of
fcripture for the proof of any of thefe things, they
would do fomething : But we are fure they cannot.
And therefore to impofe private confeffion, as a ne^-
ceflary condition of repentance upon all the- chriftian
world, under pain of damnation, that is intolerable.-
One text there is indeed, they make a great noife with,
and it looks, at firft fight, plaufibly to their purpofe ;
but, upon examination, it will be found nothing at all
to their purpofe. It is in the firth chapter of St. James's
epiftle, where the apoftle hath this paflage, Confefs
(fays he) your fens one to another , that ye may be healed t
for the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous, man a"'
vaileth much*
But firft of all; it can never be made appear, that
the confeffion which St. James here prefcribes, is to
be underftood of private confeffion to a prieft \ nay,
on the contrary, it is manifeft from the very words,
that the apoftle fpeaks of fuch a confeffion as is mu-
tual and reciprocal, Confefs your fins one to another :
Which fpeech intimates, that both parties are to con^
fefs ; both the confeflbr arid the confefTed. But now
it is not the ufage of the church for the confeflbrs to
confefs to the people who confefs to them. Further-
more, it is undeniably plain, that the apoftle doth not
here fpeak of the facramental confeffion of the churcrs
of Rome, upon this account ; that the end for which
he recommendeth confeffion to one another, is only
this, That by the prayers of one another they may be
healed of their ficknefs, (whether thofe ficknefles be
the difeafes of the foul or of the body it matters not)
for
doffrines of Confffiott, compared. 127
ror it immediately follows, The effectual fervent prayer
f a righteous man availeth much.
But what is this to the popifh confeffion ? The end
}f that is not fo much to get cured, either of our fins
Dr our ficknefTes, by the prayers of him we confefs
to -, but to obtain the pardon of our fins, by receiv-
ing his abfolution ; which is quite another thing. But
to proceed further : As there is in fcripture no com-
mand, no praclicej no mention of this facramental pri-
vate confeffion, fo there is much againft it. For the
fcripture plainly prefcribes other terms of forgivenefs
of fins, and affures us of pardon and the mercy of
God, merely upon our conf effing to God, and forfaklng
cur fins , without any more ado. David certainly ne-
fver dream'd of the neceffity of auricular confeffion,
when he fpake thefe words in the thirty -fecond pfalm,
land the fifth verfe ; / acknozvledged my fins unto thee9
'and mine iniquities have I not hid. I faid I will con-
fefs my fin unto the Lord, and lo ! thou forgavejl me
the iniquity of my Jin* Upon his confeffing his fins to
the Lord above, his (in was forgiven. And, left we
fhould think that this was an extraordinary privi-
lege vouchfaf'd unto him, and fuch a one as o-
.thers were not to expecl:, he adds further, For this
caufe /hall every one that is godly make his prayer un-
\to thee in an acceptable time, ver 11. To the fame
purpofe St. John ; If we confefs our fins (meaning to
1 God, for to him the whole context reftraineth it) God is
faithful and jufi to forgive us our fins, and to cleanfe us
from all unrighteeufnefs, i John i. 9. And thus again ;
if we can gather any thing from any parable of our
Saviour's, we may certainly gather this from the pa-
rable he makes of the publican and pharifee that went
together into the temple to pray, that, in order to the
G 4 for-
12 8 The Pcpijh and ProUfiant
forgivenefs of fins, God requires no more than an
humble, forrowful and contrite heart, confeffing what
is pail, and amending for the time to come, without
refpecl to any external administration of confefiion to
men. For it is plain that the publican, Luke xviii. 13,
who is there made the example of a penitent {inner*
upon his fmiting on his breaj}^ and faying in private to
Gccl, O God be merciful to me a firmer ", zvenf aivay
jiiftified\ that is, accepted of God, when the other
was rejected. The fame thing may be gather'd from
that other parable of the prodigal fon.
It appears from what I have faid (and much more
might be faid to this purpofe) what little colour there
is for this doclrine, That facramental eonfeffion was
inflituted by Chrift, and by him made necefTary to
true repentance, fince from the fcriptures we fee the
quite contrary.
But the ftrength of the Romanifts doth not lie, as
to this point, in the fcripture (nor indeed in many 0°
ther points ;) but in the multitude of vouchers which
they pretend to have for their doclrine in antiquity*
They give out, that this was the doclrine of the fa-
thers, and the practice of the ancient christians. Well*
this we (hall now confider in the fecond place.
2. And as to this pretence of theirs, we ihall fay two
things : The firft by way of confeflion. In the firft
place, we grant that public confeflion of fins in the
face of the church, efpecially of notorious and fcan-
dalous fins, was much in ufe in the primitive church,
and was a conftant part of the ancient difcipline. We
grant alfo, that private confeflion of fins to a difcreet
rniniiter, in order to the obtaining direction and com-
fort to the penitent, was both frequently recommend-
ed, and frequently practis'd in all times, but more
efpecially
doftrines of Confeffion , compared. 129
efpecially after the public confeffions grew into dif-
(ife. But then, having granted this, we fay, in the
fecond place, that this makes nothing in the world to
that confeffion which is now required in the church
of Rome ; for, as to their auricular facramental con-
feffion, we dare affirm thefe three things:
(1.) Firft, That it was never enjoined or command*
ed by any law of the church, as a neceiTary duty in-
cumbent upon all chriftians, till the council of Late-
ran, about four hundred years ago ; which council
was the fame that eftabliuVd the doctrine of tranfub-
ftantiation, and that other doctrine of depofing of prin-
ces in cafe they were heretical : But this is not all.
Even in that council, this bufmefs of confeffion was
only enjoin' d as an ecclefiaftical conftitution, and not
bound upon us by any law of God ; and that was
modeft enough, in comparifon of what came after-
ward : But afterwards came the council of Trent, al-
moft in the memory of our fathers \ and that was the
firft council that ever decreed private confeffion to a
prieft to be the ordinance of Chrifr, and neceflary to
falvation. So that whatever boaft the Romanifts
make of antiquity being on their fide, as to this
point, it is certain that auricular confeffion, as it
now ftands, was not a law of the church, or thought
neceffary, till within lefs than thefe hundred and fifty
years.
(2.) But fecondly, we will go further ; it is cer-
tain, that it cannot be made to appear from any tefti-
mony of the ancient fathers, that confeffion of fins to
•a prieft in private, was ever looked upon as any
more than a thing very advifeable, and very ufeful in
feveral cafes, both for the directing a man in the con-
duel: of his religious life, and as a means for the ob-
G 5 taining:
130 The Popijh and P rot eft ant
taining comfort if he was in any affliction or per-
plexity.
(3.) But thirdly, it is alfo certain, that the an-
cient fathers of the chriftian church were fo far from
thinking that private confeffion was an efTential part
of repentance ; they were fo far from thinking that it
was inftituted by Chrift, and neceffary to falvation
(which is that which the church of Rome now teaches)
that they taught directly the contrary; as abundance
of inftances might be given, if this were a proper
place. " What have 1 to do with men (faith St. Au-
*c guftine) that they fhould hear my confeffion, as
cc tho* they could heal my difeafe ?" St. Chryfoftome
alfo to the fame purpofe* " It is not neceflary (fays
u he) that thou fhouldeft confefs in the prefence of
*c witneiTes ; let the iniquity of thy offences be made
t4 in thy thoughts; let this judgment be made without
" a witnefs ; let God only fee thee confeffing : There-
" fore I entreat and befeech you, that you would con-
«c tinually make your confeffions to God ;, for I do
c< not bring thee into the theatre of thy fellow- fer-
" vants, neither do I conftrain thee to difcover thy
4C fins unto men. Unclafp thy confcience before God,
" and fhew thy wounds to him, and of him afk a me-
u dicine." And very many other pafTages he hath to
this purpofe.
Doth this now favour the Romifh doctrine concern-
ing confeffion ? doth it not directly contradict it ?
what (hail we fay ? The council of Trent decrees,
that Whofoever fo all affirm that confeffion of all our mor-
tal fins to a priefl (that we can remember) is not ne-
cejjary to the obtaining forglvenefs of them^ Jhall b» ac-
cursed. St. Auguftine, St. Chryfoftome, and many
others, do point-blank affirm, that this confeffion is
not
dc&rines of ConfeJJion^ compared. 1 3 1
not necefTary ; but that forgivenefs may be had with-
out it. Either therefore the Roman anathema's are of
no force, nor to be regarded by us ; or, if they be,
St. Auguftin and St. Chryfoftome, and other fuch
good men, are involved in them as deeply as we pro -
teftants.
3. But then thirdly, and laftly : As they have nei-
ther fcripture nor ancient fathers on their fide ; fo nei-
ther have they any colour of reafon for this bufinefs
of confeffion, as they have order'd it. For, whilft
they teach that every man is bound to confefs all his
mortal fins, even the moft fecret, even the fins of his
thoughts and defires, that, after the moft diligent exa-
mination, he finds himfelf guilty of, and that if he do
not fo confefs, he is not qualified for pardon ; and
whilft, on the other fide, it is a moft difficult matter
for a penitent to know which of his fins are mortal,
and which are not, and likewife when it is he hath
made a diligent examination of his own heart con-
cerning his fins, and when he hath not ; what a
world of endlefs fcruples and perplexities is every man
almoft by this doctrine led into ? For. at this rate,
what man can be affured that he hath confefs'd all his
fins fo particularly, fo circumftantially as he ought to
do ; or that he hath ufed that fidelity and care in exa-
mining his own confcience, that the law of Chrift
exacts from him ? This is fo true, that it was long
ago obferv'd by a famous man of their own, that, ac-
cording to the cafes, enquiries, and conciufions that
the cafuifts had made in this matter of confeffion, it
was impoffible for any man to make a right confef-
fion.
But further : This is not the only evil confequence
that follows upon that doctrine -, for this mifchief alfo
attends
132 *The Popijh and Proteftant
attends it, that, according to this notion, not he that
moft truly repents him of his fins, and moft endea-
vours to forfake them, is beft qualified for the mercy
of God ; but he that moft accurately repeats them to
the confefTor^ and enumerates their feveral circum-
ftances. For let a man be never fo much forry for
his fins, and never fo much endeavour to reform his
life, yet if he do not perform this part of the facra-
ment of penance, he is not in fo fafe a condition as
that man is, who is lefs forry for his fins, and doth lefs
endeavour to forfake them, fuppofing he do but con-
fefs well to the prieft, and receive his abfolution.
Laftly, to conclude : As this confeflion is managed
by the church of Rome, it is fo far from being a
check or a bridle upon a man to have a care of com-
mitting the fame fins again, that he hath thus con-
fefs'd (which is the greateft, and indeed, the only
thing in reafon that is pretended for the ufefulnefs of
this kind of confefTion,) that, on the contrary, as the
thing is managed, it gives a great encouragement for
iinners to continue in their fins. For this being their
doctrine, that whenever a man is forry for his fins*
and confefTeth them to the prieft, and thereupon re-
ceived! his abfolution, upon promife to perform the
penance enjoin'd, the man fo doing doth that very
moment receive remiflion, as to the eternal punifh-
ment of his fins, and is put into a ftate of God's fa-
vour 5 what follows from hence, but that the man
may now, without fcruple, or trouble of confcience,.
go on again in the fame courfe of life ? All his old fins
are now wafhed away, and he begins upon a new
fcore, and it is but repeating his confeffion, and getting
a new abfolution, and he is as fafe as if he had never
been a finner. This is one of the natural confe-
rences
doffrines of Confeffion ^ compared. 133
quences of this doctrine -, and that a great many in the
Roman communion do frequently reduce this into
practice, is too evident to be denied.
And now I do appeal to all men that will impar-
tially confider thefe things that I have now reprefent-
ed (and I am fure I have faithfully reprefented matters
as they ftand on both fides,) whether their doctrine or
ours have the better foundation -, whether our doctrine
be not much more agreeable to the fcriptures, to rea-
fon, and to the primitive practice ; more tending to
the eafe, and peace, and comfort, , and more to the
edification of fouls, than their doctrine is.
Let all of us therefore, when we find ourfelves bur-
den'd with the weight of our fins, apply to God, and
unburden ourfelves of them by confeffion to him. If
we need either advice or affiftance, or direction, or
comfort, we may call in the affiftance of pious and
difcreet minifters -, nay, we ought in prudence to do
fo, and we are wanting to ourfelves, if we do not*
But ftill the confeffion that is neceflary to the obtain-
ing our pardon, muft ever be underftood of confeffion
to God. Whofoever humbly and forrowfully con-
fefles his fins to him, and endeavours to forfake them,
fuch a man fhall find pardon whether he confefs to men
or no.
This, s the proteftant doctrine, and let us all ad-
here to it, and practife it.
And God Almighty give us grace, that we may no
longer cover our Jinsy but with humble and penitent
hearts confefs them and forfake them. So fhall wefnd
mercy through jefus Chrift, &ff.
SIR.
SERMON VIII.
A^ainft the doctrines of the church of
Rome, concerning Satisfaction and Pur-
gatory.
The fecond fermon on the following text*
P r o v. xxviii. 13.
He that cover eth his fins Jhall not pro/per. But
wbofo confejfeth them, and forfaketh them?
Jhall find mercy,
HATI undertook to mew from this
\\!&N8Z^ text was' ^nat tne cnurcn of Rome was
^W'iN&S corruPt? and had innovated in the matter
SlllilSia of repentance. I have-' already infifted on
that which they call auricular facramental confeJJiony
and which they have made neceflary to true repent-
ance. Of this having largely treated before, I fhall
not repeat now any thing that I faid-.
The fecond corruption with which we charge the.
church of Rome in the matter of repentance, is, their
doctrine of fatisfaffiou. Satisfaction is, by them, made
one
Jgainft the doffrtnes of Sec. 135
one of the three necefTary and efTential parts of repent-
ance. And what they mean by fatisfaclion, 1 fhall
now declare to you.
Thus far we are all agreed,, that God Almighty ,
as the governor of the world, in his infinite wifdom,
thought it fit not to pardon the fins of mankind with-
out fome fatisfaclion or compenfation made to him
for the breach of his laws.
Thus far likewife we do agree in the fecond place*
that our Lord Jefus Chrift, who was God and man,
did, in his own perfon, by his incarnation, and efpe-
cially by his cruel fufFerings and ignominious death
upon the crofs, make fuch a fatisfacliion to God for
; the fins of mankind, that, in confideration thereof,
he was willing to pardon them.
And thus far likewife, In the third place, is agreed
: on both fides, that to all true penitents this fatisfacldon
that Chrifi: made to God, is imputed, and fhall be
available for the everlafting falvation of their fouls.
Thus far both parties concur in their doctrine*
But then here we begin to differ. We fay, ac-
cording to the doctrine of the fcriptures, that where-
ever the guilt of fin is remitted to any perfon, the
punifhment is remitted alfo. And we fay likewife,
that the cafe is the fame as to fins committed before bap-
tifm and fins committed after -, whofoever truly repents
of his fins, which he hath committed after he became
a chriftian, thofe fins fhall as truly be forgiven to him,
as thofe were that were committed by him before
baptifm.
But now they teach quite otherwife. They fay
there is not the fame remiflion of fins after baptifm as
there was before. The fins of the heathen ftate were
all done away intirely by the facrament of baptifm ;
but
i%6 Agalnft the doflrines of
but as for thofe that are committed afterwards, there
is a different confideration ; a full fatisfaclion muft be
made for them by the perfon that committed them,
otherwife they will not be forgiven. They grant in-
deed, that every true penitent mall, by virtue of
Chrift's fatisf action, have his portion in the life to
come at the long-run : but, for all that, if he do not
make fatisfaction for all his mortal fins in this life, he
muft do it feverely in the next. They diftinguifh
between the guilt of fin, and the punifhment of it,
They fay, that to every chriftian that repents, his fin
is forgiven, as to the guilt of it, fo that he mall not
die eternally ; but notwithstanding there is a temporal
punifhment due, which, for all the forgivenefs of the
guilt, the finner muft undergo either here or here-
after ; either here, by performing fuch fevere penances
as the faults require ; or hereafter, by enduring a fe-
vere punifhment in the flames of purgatory. And*
left we mould think this temporal punifhment of pur-
gatory but a jefting matter, they allure us that it is
not fo ; but both as to the duration of it, and the
feverity of it, it is very dreadful. For the duration
of it, it may laft (for aught we know) from the time
of our death till the day of judgment. As for the
fharpnefs of it, they fay it is, in all refpedts, as tor-
menting as the pains of hell itfelf j and there is no differ- *
ence but only this, that this punifhment of purgatory
mall at laft have an end, but the pains of hell never
fhall.
Well ; but what way is there for making thefe far
tisfa£tions ? what remedy is there againft thefe dread-
ful torments in the other life ? why, to this the coun-
cil of Trent anfwers gravely, that fatisfaclions for
our fins are made partly by patiently fuffering the af-
5 fli&ions
Sat isfaff ions and Purgatory. I 3 j
licYians that are fent us by God, and partly by per-
orming thofe penances that are enjoined us by our
)rieft upon confeffion.
But the comfort is, there is a better way, and a
nuch eafier than this ; and that I fhall now give you
m account of. There is a flock of merits left to the
lifpofal of the church \ that is, both the merits of
fefus Chrifl, as many of them as were more than
snough for the fatisfying for the eternal puniihment
of the fins of mankind, and likewife the merits of
all the faints, that were more than enough for the fa-
tisfying for their own fins : I fay, all thefe are the
flock or treafure of the church, and may be difpenfed
out to particular perfons, as the governor of the
church, the vicar of Chrift upon earth, fhall think fit.
And two ways there are by which the benefit of
thefe merits may be made over to us ; that is to fay,
by indulgence, and by procuring mafies to be cele-
brated, and alms to be given for us after we are dead*
By either of thefe ways, our perfonal fatisfaclion for
our fins is excufed. And according to the propor-
tion of thefe indulgences or mafies that we have pur-
chafed, our punifhment in the next world will either
be lefTened, or wholly taken away. In proportion to
the (hare of the church's treafure that we have provided
to ourfelves, either we fhall never come into purgatory
at all, or, if we do, we fhall flay there the lefs time$
or our pains will be proportionally abated.
This is a plain reprefentatiori of their doctrine, as
to this matter. And 1 think no man among them5
that underflands their religion, but will own all that
I have now delivered to be the fenfe of their church*
But how falfe and unreafonable this do&rine is3 and
138 Againfi the dottrines of
of what mifchievous confequences to the fouls of men,
will appear by reprefenting thefe two following things :
1. Firft of all, there is no ground either in reafon or
fcripture, that when God hath once forgiven a man's
fins, as to the guilt of them, he mould afterwards inflict
the punifhments of thofe fins upon the offender : which is
the main principle upon which their doctrine proceeds.
2. Secondly, their doctrine of purgatory, that is to
fay, that there is a temporal punimment after this life
to be inflicted upon all thofe who have not made full
fatisfaction for their fins, either by themielves or
others ; though, in the mean time, the fins have been,
repented of, and are forgiven by God ; I fay, this doc-
trine is altogether groundlefs, and not only fo, but is
againft the tenor of the fcriptures.
I. To thefe two things I fhall fpeak. And firft
of all, we fay they do ill in this matter, to diftinguifh
between the guilt of fin and the punimment of it j
and to affirm that God doth forgive the fins of chri-
stians upon their repentance, but doth not excufe them
from that temporal punimment that doth neceflarily
and infeparably adhere to them : this, we fay, is
againft both reafon and fcripturs.
1. Firft, of all, it is, in the reafon of the thing,
abfurd. For forgivenefs of the guilt of a crime doth,
in the very nature of it, imply an exemption from the
punimment that was due to that crime ; otherwife it
is not properly forgivenefs. We do not here deny
that good men after they have heartily repented of
their fins, and God hath forgiven them, may not-
withstanding afterwards be feverely vifited by God in
this life ; may fall into many afflictions and calamities,
and fometimes very fad ones ; this is granted on all
hands : and whofoever denies it, as he contradicts
fcrio-
Satisfactions and Purgatory. 139
"cripture, fo he contradicts the experience of all ages.
But this we fay, thefe vifitations, thefe fufferings,
:hefe afflictions which God fends upon thofe perfons,
are not properly punifhments for thofe fins of theirs
which God hath already forgiven, but are fent to them
upon another account. They are the natural refult
of the conftitution of things here below, and God
makes ufe of them as chaftifements, or as trials to
pious perfons. They are inflicted not as punifhments,
but as mercies 5 not as the effects of God's juftice,
but of his kindnefs -, it is intended thereby that either
fomething that was amifs in them may be reformed,
!cr that their faith and patience and other virtues mould
be exercifed both to their own final comfort, and the
benefit of others that are about them. Thefe are
that difcipline that God ufeth with his children, but
not punifhments properly fo called.
But are not the temporal judgments of God, pu-
nifhments upon bad men, and impenitent finners r
and do not good men fuffer the very fame judgments I
Both thefe things are true ; but yet we fay, the fame
thing inflicted upon one fort of men is properly a pu-
nifhment, but with refpect to the other fort it is not.
For inftance, here is one man, by the fentence of the
judge, ordered to be branded with a hot iron, for a
crime that he is convicted of : here is another man,
by the order of his phyfician, feared in one of his limbs
for the cure of fome ulcer or gangrene he hath con-
tracted. Both thefe perfons now fuffer the fame
thing, and endure the fame fort of pain and fmart ;
but yet I hope no body will deny, that this fuffer-
ance is upon a quite different account, and hath a
quite different notion. In the former cafe, what is
inflicted is truly and properly a punifhment, for the
man
140 Againft the dcffirines of
man fuffers as a malefactor ; in the latter, it is not
a punifhment, but a medicine, and the man fuffers
only in order to a cure. And the very fame thing
may be faid as to the afflictions of good and bad men-
in this life ; which diftinction, if it be applied, will
perfectly folve all thofe texcs of fcripture that are
brought by the Romanics in favour of this their doc-
trine.
2. But fecondly, we fay further, this doctrine of
theirs is not only unreafonabie in itfelf, but it is with-
out any ground in fcripture 5 nay, it is exprefsly againft
what the fcripture declares. Our Saviour hath taught
us, in our daily petitions, thus to pray ; Forgive us
our debts (meaning our fins) as we forgive our debtors^
Matt. vi. 12. But can any man be faid to forgive a
debt to another, and yet at the fame time require the
payment of it either in whole or in part ? Either
therefore there is no punifhment exacted after forgive-
nefs of our fins, or our Saviour commands us to pray
daily for that which God will never grant us.
Furthermore, the forgivenefs of our fins is always
reprefented in fcripture as a thing perfectly free and
gratuitous ; as a pure effect: of God's undeferved fa-
vour and goodnefs. But how can that confift with
the popifh notion of forgivenefs, which fuppofeth,
that we cannot be abfolved from the punifhment of
our fins, till we have either here or hereafter paid the
uttermoft farthing; that we were accountable for ?
Laftly, fo far is God from exacting the punifhment
of any man's fins after he hath repented of them,
that he exprefly declares that he never will do it.
Among other texts, that in Ezekiel' is very remark-
able ; If the wicked (fays he) will turn away from all
his fins that he hath committed^ and keep all myjlatutes%
Satis -faff ions and 'Purgatory. 141
end do that which is lawful and right (which is the juft
description of a true repentance) he Jhall furely live^
he Jhall not die, All his tranfgrejjions which he hath
committed Jhall net be mentioned to him^ Ezek. xviii. 21,
22. Or, as other translations have it, Jhall not he re-
membered to h'uiu And fure if God do not remember
them, if God do not mention them, there is no fear that
he will punifh them, afterwards ; and that for the pre-
venting that punifhment, the finner mull make a com-
pleat fatisfaction to the divine juftice, either by himfelf
or others, as the Romanics teach.
II. And thus much of the firfr proportion. The
fecond is this : The popifh doctrine of a dreadful tem-
poral punifhment after this life, to be inflicted on all
thofe who have not made compleat Satisfaction for all
their fins in this life, is altogether groundlefs, having
no foundation in fcripture or antiquity, but directly re-
pugnant thereto.
Their doctrine is, That all fouls that have not made
Satisfaction for their fins while they lived, tho' all thofe
fins were remitted, fo that they mail never go to hell,
but at laft fhall go to heaven ;^yet they mall, in the
other ftate, undergo a grievous punifhment in a cer-
tain kind of prifon which they call purgatory -, for fo
long time till they be perfectly purged of their fins.
But is there one word of this doctrine in the fcrip-
tures, or the ancient fathers ? not a tittle. Two places
they do indeed produce, which they fay doth much
countenance it ; the one is that paffage of our Saviour,
where, fpeaking of the blafphemy againft the Holy
Ghoft, he fays, That that fin jhall neither be forgiven
in this worlds nor in thai which is to come. Matt. xii.
32. From whence they take the liberty to conclude,
that fome fins, tho' they are not forgiven in this world,
may
142 Jlgainfi the do brines of
may be forgiven in the world to come ; and confe-
quently there is a purgatory, a place for the purifying
fouls from their fins in the other ftate.
But in anfwer to this, let us afk them ferioufly this
queftion : Did our Saviour, in this place, fpeak
of the forgivenefs of fins in the other world with
refpect to the temporal punifhment that was due
to them, or the eternal ? If he fpoke of the forgive-
nefs of the eternal punifhment, then his words make
nothing for purgatory, but much againft it. For their
doctrine is, that fins, as to the eternal punifhment of
them, are, upon repentance, forgiven in this world,
and not in the next ; and that the ftate of purgatory is
only ordained as a temporal punifhment of thofe fins
for which fatisfaction was not made in this life. But
on the other fide, if they fay that our Saviour, when
he faid that the fin againft the Holy Ghoft jhould nei-
ther be forgiven in this world) nor the world to come9
meant this forgivenefs of the temporal punifhment
that is due to crimes in the other world, which is their
notion of purgatory, then they make our Saviour to
fpeak a flat contradiction -, for they make him to fay
that this temporal punifhment fhall never be forgiven ;
which is, in other words, juft thus ; that this tempo-
ral punifhment, which fhall have an end, fhall be an
eternal punifhment which fhall never have an end ;
which, as it overthrows their doctrine of purgatory,
fo it is as great a contradiction as can be.
If any one then fhould afk, What is the meaning
of our Saviour's expreflion, that the blafphemy againft
the Holy Ghoft jball neither be forgiven in this zvorld9
nor in that which is to come ; I anfwer, the plajn ac-
count of the phrafe is this : Our Saviour, as far as
can be conjectured from this words, did not in the
5 leaft
Satisfactions and Purgatory. 143
leaft think of the popifh purgatory, nor any thing
like it, when he uttered this fpeech. All that he de-
figned to exprefs was this, that the contempt and blaf-
phemy of the pharifees againft the Holy Ghoft (which
they were guilty of, in faying that our Saviour did his
miracles by the help of the devil, and not by the Spirit
of God) was fo grievous a fin, that it mould be pu-
nifhed feverely both in this world, and in the other.
And the phrafe by which he exprefTeth this, was very
well known to the Jews, to whom he fpake 3 for he
ufed it by way of allufion to a tenet of theirs. It was
a common received doctrine among the Jews, and is
to this day, that for fome fins a man was pardoned
prefently upon his repentance ; that other fins were not
pardoned till the folemn day of expiation, and others
not to be expiated but by fome grievous temporal af-
fliction ; but that all would be expiated at the death
of the offender, provided he were an Ifraelite, who,
as fuch, mud have his portion in the happinefs of
another world. To this doctrine of theirs our Saviour
feems to have refpecl, when he tells them that this
was a crime which mould not be expiated at their
death, according to their conceit ; but whofoever
mould be guilty of it, would have a miferable por-
tion in the world to come. This feems to be the
full fenfe of the expreffion.
As for the other text of fcripture which feveral of
the Roman doctors urge for purgatory, it is that pafTage
of St. Paul, where he fays, that if any man, upon the
foundations of chriftianity, ivbichwere laid by the apo-
files, do build hay andjiubble^ and fuch kind of rub-
bifh, his works mould periih, and he jhould fujfer lofs ;
but he hhnf elf Jhould be favedy yet fo as by fire , 1 Cor.
iii. 15. This feveral of the Romanifts do thus inter-
pret,
144 Agalnft the doElrines of
pret, that the man that was thus guilty, fhould indeed,
upon his repentance, be eternally faved at laft ; but
yet he muft be purged from his fins after he died, by
undergoing the fire of purgatory. An admirable proof
of purgatory : as if every body did not underftand the
particle of funilitude here ufed, fo as by fire , was
enough to fhew that St. Paul did not here intend an
efcape out of the fire literally ; but fuch an efcape as
men make out of an houfe that is on fire. The words
ought to be rendered, he himfelf Jhall be faved, yet fo
as out of the fire. Now it is well known, that by this
phrafe can be meant no more than this, that it would
be a hard thing for the man to efcape -, he run a great
rifque, his fafety was very hazardous, and if he was
preferved, it would be with a great deal of difficulty.
This expreffion of efcaping as out of the 'fire, was a
common proverbial way of fpeaking both among the
Jews and among the heathens in the apoftles time ;
and it is always ufed in this fenfe both in the fcripture
and other authors. What elfe is the meaning of that
pafTaoe in Amos ; Ye were as a fire-brand plucked out
of the burning f Amos iv. 1 1. and of that other palTage
of Jude, ver. 28. others fave with fear, plucking
them out of the fire ? Which expreffions only fignify
thegreatnefs of the danger, and the difficulty of efcap-
ino- it : fo that certainly we may conclude, that from
this text no purgatory flames can be kindled. All that
St. Paul fays, is, that the teachers of falfe doctrines,
thofe that mifreprefented chriftianity, their works
fhould be confumed ; for time would difcover truth,
and truth fhould prevail at laft ; but the perfons that
thus taught falfely, that thus built hay andjlubble upon
the foundation ofChrift, they fhould for this their preva-
ricating, be in great danger of being feverely punifhed :
but
Satisfactions and Purgatory, 145
But yet, upon their repentance, they might efcape ;
but it would be with a great deal of difficulty ; their
condition was very hazardous and dangerous.
Thus I have given an account of thefe two texts
which the champions of the Romifh faith lay the
greateft ftrefs upon ; and I hope we may be all con-
vinced, that they do not do the work they are brought
for: and feveral of the Romanifts themfelves are indeed
on our fide in this matter, acknowledging freely, that
neither of them are to be interpreted of purgatory.
But this we are certain of, that if thefe two texts do
not fpeak of purgatory, there are no other texts do ;
nay, not only fo, but there are many texts fpeak
againft it.
The fcripture doctrine concerning the condition of
men, after they depart out of this body, is only this ;
that there are two eftates belonging to dying men,
a good one, and a bad one. As to all perfons that
die true believers and true penitents, they immediately,
upon their death, are put into a happy condition,
and (hall continue in that condition till the day of
judgment ; at which time their happinefs fhall be corn-
pleated and confummated by the refurreclion of their
bodies. As for unbelievers, and wicked livers, and
impenitents, they are immediately, upon their death,
put into a miferable condition, and fo fhall continue
for ever ; tho' perhaps their mifery will not have its
confummation and extremity till the day of judgment,
and the general conflagration of the world, as neither
the other had their happinefs compleated till that time.
This is plainly the fcripture account of the flate of fouls
departed ; and there is no mention there in the leaft of
fouls that are in purgatory torments, but rather much
againft it.
Vol. VII. H Our
146 -Again ft the do Amies cf
Our Saviour, in that famous parable of the rich man
and Lazarus, Luke xvi. 20, — 23. doth feem thus to re-
prefent the ftate of the other world, viz. that the fouls
of good men, immediately upon their death, are in a
happy condition, and the fouls of bad men in a ftate of
torments. For no fooner did Lazarus die, but he was
-carried by angels into the bofom of Abraham (which
bofom of Abraham was a common phrafe among the Is-
raelites, as appears yet by their writings by which they
ufed to exprefs the happinefs and bleflednefs of pious
fouls departed) and, on the other fide, the covetous
voluptuous rich man was put immediately into a ftate
of torment. Now tho' we grant that this difcourfe
of our Saviour is no more than a parable, yet we can
never imagine that he would contrive a parable in fuch
a manner, that the very ground and foundation upon
which it proceeded, ihouid be falfe : but this is not
all. It is evidently plain from the whole current of
the New-teftament, that all perfons that die true pe-
nitents, and in the ftate of falvation, are immediately
put into a happy condition ; and therefore confequently
there is no fuch purging tormenting fire to be under-
gone by them, as the papifts dream of. St. Paul,
more than once, mentions two houfes or tabernacles ;
the one the tabernacle of the body that -we are now
cloathed with ; the other that houfe from heaven with
which good men be cloathed upon in the other life.
But his difcourfe always implies, that as foon as ever
good men die, they go ftrait to Chrift, and fhall put
qyi that heavenly tabernacle, and pafs immediately into •
that everlafting city above, whofe maker and builder is
God.
Furthermore, our Lord Jefus Chrift promifed the
penitent thief upon the crofs, that that very day hejlmdd
be
Satisfactions and Purgatory. 147-
he with him in paradife. Now paradfife certainly is the
ftate or place of happinefs that God hath prepared for
all holy fouls after their departure hence. There is
no term more ufual among the Jews, both the ancient
and the modern, for the expreiling this, than the term
of paradife. But however, if it was not fo ufual,
vet our Saviour's words fix it to that fenfe. The thief
was thai day to be zvith him in paradife. Now fure
jio body will fay that oar Saviour went to purgatory,
but to heaven ; and therefore the thief went thither -
alio. And what can more deftroy the doctrine of
purgatory and fatisfa&ions than this ? for if fatisfaction
ibe neceffary, as they teach it is, and if purgatory be
the place where fatisfactions are to be made after this
[life, then certainly the penitent thief, according to
itheir doctrine, mull have continued a long time in.
.purgatory ; for no fatisfaction had he made for his
fins, as to their temporal punifhment, fince he died
after a vicious life, upon a very fnort and fuduen re-
pentance : but yet we fee the quite contrary ; for he
did not go to purgatory, but to that place where
our Saviour was to be, that is, the place of the
bleiTed.
But if any objection be made againfr. this inftance ;
as that this thief had not received baptifm when- he re-
pented, but that his mameful death was in the place of
baptifm to him, and confequently he had all his- fins
remitted to him without fat is fact ion,, as all perfons
; upon their baptifm have ; but as .{or fins committed
rafter baptifm, the cafe is otherwife : as to this, we
• fay, that this pretence will be quite taken away b«
v another text that I am g:oing to mention. St Tohnl-
in the Revelations, tells us, that he heard this voice
from heaven^ and. was commanded to write it 5 blejed
H 2 are
148 Againft the doRrines of
are the dead that die in the Lord, for they rejl from their
labours^ and their works folloiv them, Rev. xiv. 13.
Here it is faid indefinitely of all the difciples of Chrift ;
all that die in his religion, and in his fear, that blejfed
are they when they die, for they reft from their labours.
But now how can this proportion confift with the doc-
trine of purgatory ? If all that die in Chrift do reft
from their labours, then it is very certain that none of
them are punifhed and tormented after they are dead.
For how can reft from labours ftand with dreadful mi-
feries and cruel fufferings, as fouls in purgatory are faid
to undergo I If this doctrine was true, they would not
have a reft from their labours, but only a change of
them 5 they would go from one labour to another ;
from a light labour in this life, to a raoft heavy and
infupportable one in the other ftate. No, certain- .
ly, to fuppofe that all that die in Chrift, that is,
all true penitents, do reft from their labours, and
their works follow them, (as St. John here, from
the authority of the Holy Spirit, affirmeth) is to fup-
pofe, that they are all in a happy blifsful condition,
and that they receive the rewards of their virtue and
and piety : And confequently the whole doctrine of
purgatory is but a romance ; a thing invented not only
without the warrant, but againft the warrant of the
the holy fcriptures.
And as we do affirm, that this dodtrine of purga-
tory is without fcripture, fo we do affirm that it is with*
out, and againft, the fenfe and the do&rine of the an-
cient church of Chrift for many centuries. This,
j think, we may confidently fay, and make it good,
that there is no one father, nor any one council of the
primitive church (that is owned by the church of
Home themfelves) for five hundred years after Chrift,
that
Satisfactions and Purgatory, 149
that ever taught the doctrine of purgatory, as they
now teach and believe it : and,, on the other fide, we
can produce feveral paflages of feveral of the primitive
fathers that do wholly make againft it.
Two perfons are indeed quoted by them, that were
of great name and reputation in the church, who feem
to talk on their fide ; and thefe are Orio-en and Ter-
" o
tullian : but neither of thefe mens teflimonies will do
any credit to their caufe.
For as for Origen (fo far as we can gather from
his writings now extant, if indeed they be his) his
opinion was, that all the punifhments that God in-
flicted after this life, v/ere purgatory punifhments 5
that is, would have an end : and that after fuch a
determinate time, both devils and wicked men, hav-
ing undergone their purgations, mould be releafed
from their torments, and enter upon a new fcene of
tilings. But this makes nothing in the world to the
doclrine of purgatory, as it is eftablifhed in the church
of Rome ; for they make purgatory diftindfc from hell,
holding the former to be temporal, but the other
eternal.
As for the other father Tertullian, it is very certain
that all the time he continued a catholic chriftian, he
fpoke not one word of purgatory (as far as appears by
his writings;) but after he forfook the catholic com-
munion, and turned to the fide of Montanus, whom
he held to be the Holy Ghoft, then indeed he talked
of a relief that departed fouls, which died in an im-
perfect ftate, were to expect from their fufferings by
the Paraclete ; that is, by the Holy Ghoft ; which Pa-
raclete he affirmed to be Montanus.
This is all the evidence and all the authority that
the papifts have for their purgatory from primitive an-
H 3 tiquity?
150 Jgainft the doftrines. Sec.
tiquity ; and let them make the beft they can of it,
and much good may it do them. On the other fide,
it is very certain that the current of the antients runs
perfectly againft them -, as might be made good, if
this was a fit place for it.
But I will proceed no further in this argument. I
hope I have given you fo plain an account of the po-
piih doctrine in this matter, and have fo plainly con-
futed it from the fcripture, that I hope the moft ordi-
nary capacity may underftand it, and be fatisfied of
the erroneoufnefo of it,
E R«
G
jAgainft other corruptions and innovations
in the P
pentance
in the Popifh doctrine concerning Re-
The third fermon on the following text.
P R o v. xxviii. 13.
He that cover eth bis fins Jhall not fro f per. But
whofo confejfeth tbem, and forfaketb them,
Jhall find mercy.
1(&!^§f£g% O U may pleafe to remember, that my
defign was to take occafion from thefe
W$\ felH words to confider the popifh doctrines of
" FyB^sS repentance, and to endeavour to fhew
both the novelty, and the ejroneoufnefs, and the dan-
ger of them.
And two doctrines of this kind I have already infift-
ed upon :
Firft, That of auricular facramental confeilion.
In treating of which, I both fhewed how far our
church and all other proteftants do own and approve
H 4 of
j .52 Jgainft Corruptions and
of confeilion to men, and what the doctrine of the
church of Rome was in this matter; and alfo that
this impofition of theirs was a new thing without
warrant from fcripture, without warrant from antiqui-
ty, and that which was both unreafonable in itfelf,
and, in many cafes, of ill confequence.
The fecond general error 1 infifred upon was, the
doctrine of fatisfadtions to be made in perfon by every
{inner, even after his fin is forgiven him, either in
this life, or in the purgatory flames of the other world,
unlefs he prevent it, by procuring indulgences, or
getting niaffes to be faid for him. Now, in oppofi-
tioti to this doctrine, I mewed, that there is no ground
either in reafon or fcripture, that, when God hath once
forgiven a man's fins, as to the guilt of them, he
mould "afterwards inflict: the punifhment of thefe fins
upon the offender ; (which is the main principle up-
on which their doctrine proceeds :) And that their
doctrine of purgatory hath no foundation in fcripture,
or in early antiquity, but, on the contrary, is againft
the tenor of both.
I now proceed to a third doctrine of the church of
Rome concerning this matter of repentance, which
doth flatly contradict the notion of repentance here
deliver'd in the text, and is liltewife of mifchievous
confequence to the fouls of men ; and that is, that
they make contrition, with the prieft's abfolution,
at any time fufncient to warn away all our fins, and
to procure the pardon of God for them.
This is the avowed doctrine of the whole church
of Rome, and confirmed by the authority of the
council of Trent. Now, that we may not be at a
lofs what they mean by contrition, the faid council
hath given us a definition of it -3 That it is grief of
mind
Innovations in Popijh doffrines. 153
mind for fin committed^ and a detefiation of ity toge-
ther with a purpofe to fen no more. So that whofoever
is thus contrite, and confefleth his fins to the prieft,
and receives his abfolution, promifing to perfom the
penance enjoined, is actually put into a ftate of Taxa-
tion from that moment.
This doctrine now, we fay, is both againfl the
fcripture notion of repentance declared in the text,
and in other places, and it is of ill confequence as to
. the lives of mem
1. Firfr, It contradicts the fcripture notion of re-
pentance > for that, as appears both from our text,
.and abundance of other places, includes in it not on-
ly a forrow for fin, and refolution againfl: it, but a
forfaking of it alfo : Only he that confefjeth and for-
faketh his fins^ Jhall find mercy. Let a man be never
, fo forry for his fins, and purpofe never io heartily to
iin no more, yet if, notwithftanding, he ft ill continues
to purfue the fame vicious courfes, he is not a true
penitent. The word by which the true evangelical
faving repentance is exprefTed, is pzluvoia,, which fig-
nines not a tranfient paflion for having offended God,
or only a fudden purpofe to change our lives; but it
fignifies an actual change of the mind, and will -, a
transformation of the whole foul from bad principles
to good. And where once this change, this transfor-
mation is made, there muft of neceffity follow a new
life, a conversation quite different from that which
was led before j a habit of fuch actions as are agree-
able to the laws of God. Godly forrow for fin, which
is that which the papifts mean by contrition, is not
repentance, and cannot procure pardon ; but it is on-
ly a good difpofition, a right preparation to repent-
ance* This the apoftle hath molt expreily told us,
H 5 wher*
x54 Againft Corruptions and
when he faith, that Godly forroiu worketh repentance
■not to be repented of9 2 Cor. vii. 10. If then it be
the thing that works repentance, it is not repentance
itfelf.
2. But fecondly, this doctrine, That contrition,
with confeffion and abfolution, doth put a man into
a ftate of falvation, is not only againft the fcriptures,
but againft good life; for it gives any man that be-
lieves it, great encouragement to continue in his fins
all his life long, and that upon this account, that it
quite puts him off from thinking that there is ever any
neceffity that he fhould reform his life. According to
this doctrine, it is but being forry for my fins at feme
folemn times, when I come to confeffion, and refolv-
ing to do fo no more ; and prefently, upon the prieft's
pronouncing a few words to me, I am abfolved of
the guilt of them ;. I am put into the favour of God,
and, if I die that moment, I fhall be finally faved'..
Well, but what if I dornot perform my refolutions
that I then made, but return to my fins again ? Why,.
it is but my repeating the fame medicine, being forry
again, and refolving again, and taking abfolution a-
gain, and then I am as right again as ever I was :
and thus, toiies quoiles^ as often as I -thu-s repent, lo
often are my fins forgiven me.. And, at my laft
hour,, tho' I have all my life continued in my (ins,
yet this repentance, and this abfolution, will as cer-
tainly pafs me into a right of the favour of God, as
if I had never fo much reformed my life, and lived
never fo innocently and virtuouily ; always excepting
the purgatory punimrnents, that I may, without fatis-
faclions and indulgences, endure in another life.
But now, upon thefe principles, how can any fin-
susr* that is in love with his fms,, and deeply engaged
Innovations in Popijh doffirines. 155
in a wicked courfe, how can he ever think himfelf
obliged to reformation ? How {hall he ever be drawn
to enter upon, much lefs to go through, that tedious
fatigue of mortification, that intolerable burdenfome
bufinefs of forfaking his fins, fmce the being forry for
them will do as well ? What man would be at that
pains, when he can obtain pardon and falvation upon
fo much eafier terms ?
But I have hitherto given you the faireft repfefent-
ation of the Romifli doctrine of repentance, as to
this matter, that the ftricleft cafuifts among them
will be concluded by. But, in truth, it is generally
thought too ftricl: and fevere for the finners that they
have to deal with ; and therefore they have yet eafier
conditions for penitents to obtain pardon, than thofe
I have now mention'd. Contrition is too heavv a
burden to impofe upon finners ; and therefore they
have found out a way in which the firmer mall be re-
conciled to God upon eafier terms, (ilia ftrpDOnng:
that he confefs, and receive abfolution) and that is, by
the means of attrition, or hnperfcft contrition, as the
council of Trent calls" it; even this, with the facra-
ment of penance, will do the bufmefs. Now what
they mean by attrition, we may gather from what we
laid of contrition ; for if contrition be a hatred of firi:
with a refolution againft it, then attrition, or imner-
feef. contrition, mull be an imperfect hatred of lm4
with an imperfect refolution againft it. So that wrfoTo-
ever affirms that attrition, with the pri eft's 'abfolution,
fhall be available for the procuring justification be-
fore God, doth affirm, that though a man be not (o
forry for his fins, as he mould, nor doth perfectly re-
folve againft them, but only hath fome imperfect our-
pofes to forfake them $ yet fuch a man fhall';, upon
this
l5& dg&inft Corruptions and
this flight repentance, Jiave his fms forgiven him by
God.
This now, one of us would think, was dangerous
doctrine; yet really it is no other than what is pro-
feffedly taught by as great doctors as any they have 5
and thofe not one or two, but abundance, and thofe
not only jefuitieal cafuifls, but of all other forts : nay,
books have been publifhed among them, to fhew that
this is the prevailing authoriz'd doctrine of their di-
vines* It would be endlefs to quote authorities in a
matter fo acknowledg'd as this is. I will, among an
heap that is by fundry authors collected to our hands,
give you the words of one of their divines, and he as
eminent and learned as any they have. He there
fhews, M That grave men, and famous in their
" church, do afTert, that a penitent having received
*•*■ the faerament of penance, that is, having confefied,.
c< and been abfolved,. is not bound to fo much as one
" acl of contrition, or the love of God, in order to
** his reconciliation with God : Nay, allow a man
tt hath hated God to the laft acl: of his life, if he re-
** ceives the faerament of penance, they deny that it
t( is necefiary for him to be contrite for his fins, or
** to love God." This is wild enough, but what
follows is more extravagant, and that is this, cc That
** the excellency of the evangelical facraments above
u the legal, confifts in this, that the gofpel facraments
<c have freed us a graviffimo contritionis & dileclationis
** Deijuga.'i that is, They have freed us from, the moji
** heavy yoke of contrition^ and of the love of God."
Is not this wonderfully pious and chriftian ? Are-
not thefe men excellent guides of fouls h And is not
a finner admirably provided for, that puts himfelf un-
der their, conduct ? And yet this is the doctrine that is
4 frequently
Innovations in Pepifh dcftrines. 157
frequently taught by the wifeft and graveft of their
divines. But when they are urged with this, it is
ufually replied, that this is only the judgment of par-
ticular men, and that the whole church ought not to
be charged with it, fince it was never eftabliih'd nor
decreed by any general council. But how frivolous is
this pretence ; as if men of their communion, in the
bufmefs of their repentance, did always flxictly exa-
mine the decrees of councils, and did not rather
wholly give up themfelves to the government of their
fpiritual guides ? We know that all their penitents
are managed by their confeflbrs y and we can prove^.
that their confeflbrs do inftil fuch notions as thefe
into their penitents ; nayr and do avow to all the
world, in their printed books, that they are true. It
concerns them therefore to mew, that thefe notions
and doctrines are difallow'd and difcountenane'd by
the pope,, or by fome council. If they can do this, we
will no longer lay the fault of their private doctors on
their "church in general ; but this they cannot do*
For tho' fome of the JanfeniRs have appear'd vigo-
rouily againft this doctrine we are now talking of,
ftill the pope could never yet be induced to condemn
it, or to put a mark of infamy upon it.
But this is not all ; whatever fome of them fay,,
that this is not the doctrine of the church,, but rather
the doctrine of private men ; to any one that und er-
rands a confecnience, it will appear to be a profefled
eftabl ilhed doctrine of the church,, and that by the
holy council of Trent itfelf*
For the proof of this, I defire only that thefe two
paflages may be compared together.. In one place,
the council determines this, That attrition or im~
perfeff contriiiony though it cannot bring a man fm
ju/lificatioTi
158 Againfi Corruptions and
jujlif cation without the facrament of -penance^ yet it
doth difpofe. men for the obtaining the grace of 'God by
the facrament of penance. But now in another- place
it is decreed, 'That all the facraments do confer grace
on all thofe who are dlfpofed to receive it.
Let any one now judge, upon comparing thefe two
determinations, whether it doth not necefiarily fol-
low from hence, That all thofe that have but im-
perfect contrition, or bare attrition for their fins, are,
by the facrament of penance, put into a ftate of fal-
vation, according to the doctrine of the council of
Trent. All facraments do confer the grace they are
ordain'd far, to all that are rightly difpofed. Bare
attrition, or imperfect forrow for fin, and imperfect
purpofes againfi it, doth difpofe a man to obtain grace
by the facrament of penance. Both thefe propofitions
are laid down by the council of Trent. What in the
world then can follow more neceifarily than this,
That, according to that council, Attrition^ with the
facrament of penance ^ doth put a 7nan into a Jlaie of
grace ?
But is not this a moil: mifchievous doctrine, that a
little grief of mind, tho' it do not proceed from the
love of God, but merely from the fear of punifn-
ment, and tho' it be not accompanied with firm and
ftedfafl refolutions to- forfake our fins, but only hath
in it fome flight purpofes to live better (nay, it is e-
nough, as the council of Trent feems to intimate,
that the fmner at that time when he repents, hath
not an actual purpofe to fin again) that this, after a
vicious life, after repeated acts of fins, after many
habits of it inveterately continued in, mould, by the
prieft's pronouncing three or four words, cancel all a
man's fins pafh and fo reconcile him to God, that if
he
Innovations in Popijh dcfirines. 159
he die that moment, he is fure at laft of everraiting
happinefs ? What a comfortable doctrine is this to
fmners ? How admirably doth it reconcile thofe two
things, which in all other religions have been thought
inconfiftent, the love of fin, and the love of God ?
an habit of vice, and a title to eternal happinefs f
What wonder is it, that fo many diflblute perfons go
over to the communion of that church, where par-
don, and reconciliation with God, aie to be had upon
fuch eafy conditions ? If fmners gave up themfelves
into the bofom of that holy church to be made better,
it would be commendable 5 but the principles taught
by them do not feem to tend that way ', and it is
much to be prefumed, that it is not a reformation of
life that their profelytes defign, when they leave us,
but a continuance in their fins with greater fecurity
and greater comfort than we could promife to them in
our way. What Zofimus the pagan hiitorian mali-
cioufly fays of Conftantine, viz. " That he was fo
** great a criminal, that no other religion could give
cc him any hopes of pardon, and therefore he turned
<c to chriftianity, the baptifmal waters of which
cc would, with one dafh, wafh away all his fins,"
may be truly faid, it is to be feared, of many of our
converts to the Roman church. The lives that they
lead are fo bad, that fo long as they continue in that
itate, no other religion but that of the church of
Rome can give them encouragement to hope for fal-
vation. But that religion can and doth, by the ex-
cellent expedients they have invented for the reftor-
ing wicked perfons, fo continuing, to the grace and
mercy of God.
Thus have I gone thro' thofe three principal erross
in the doctrine of repentance which the church of
4 Rome
i€o Agalnft Corruptions and
Rome hath introduced ; namely, their alTerting the
neceffity of auricular confeffion ; their alTerting the ne-
cefHty of fatisfadYions after God hath forgiven fin,
upon which is founded their dodlxine of purgatory and
indulgences ; and laftly, their holding that contrition
or even attrition, by the virtue of the facrament of
penance, is fufncient to put any man into a ftate of
falvation.
But befides thefe, there are feveral other doctrines
relating to this bufinefs of repentance frequently taught
in that church, and that without any check or reproof,
which it is fit all ferious perfons, that have a care of
their fouls, ihould be informed of and cautioned
again ft.
I fhall briefly name two of them : Firft of all, one
pofition generally maintained by the popifh cafuifts and
confeflbrs is, that a man is not bound prefently to re-
pent of a fin that he is guilty of; no, not tho' it be
•a mortal fin. Some time or other they acknowledge,,
that he is bound to repent of his fin ; but, to do it
prefently, upon the commiffion of the fin, there is
no obligation upon him by the divine law. If he fo
manage his affairs, that his repentance be performed
at all, it is enough ; and there is no more required
of him. It is indeed very true, that the council of
Lateran, that council that firft eftabliihed auricular
confefiion, doth oblige all chriftians to repent once a
year at leaft, and to go to confefiion, and that is at
the folemn time of Eafter- But this, the cafuifts fay,
is only a law and rule of the church ; but we are not
tied to it by the law of God. All that we are obliged
to by God's law is, to repent in articulo mortis^ the
time when we come to die : and as for the injunction,
of the church* we fatisfy that by performing the out-
ward!
Innovations in Popijh doftrines, 1 6 1
tvard folemnity of repentance, the ritual part of it,
which confifts in confeffion and coming to the facra-
ment. One of their famous doctors voucheth this
to be the doctrine both of pope Adrian and cardinal
Cajetan ; and indeed, to be the {^n(e of all men. But
now, is not this a moft godly doctrine ? Doth it not
tend mightily to the reformation of all wicked livers ?
On the contrary, I would know what can give greater
encouragement to any man to continue in his evil
courfes, than this doctrine doth ? You have now com-
mitted fome grievous crime, and it lies heavy upon
your confcience : Why, be not afraid for that ; if
you will now prefently go and unburden yourfelf by
confeflion, and take up new refolutions, you may do
well, and take a sood courfe to fecure vour falvation :
but yet this you are not bound to. Tho' you are at
prefent in a ftate of enmity to God, yet there is no
law ties you to be immediately reconciled \ if it be
but done at any time before you die, it is enough.
Is not this kind of reafoning extremely tending to li-
centioufnefs, and giving encouragement to all forts
of riots and debaucheries ? What can put a more ef-
fectual bar to a man's reformation of his manners,
than this doctrine does, if it be once believed jJJ,
Secondly, what they teach, as to the time of a man's
repenting, is not more pernicious to fouls, than what
they teach as to the kind of fins to be repented of.
Their diftinction of fins into two forts, mortal and
venial, is fufficiently known. Which distinction, as
they order ity is really an hinderance of repentance ->
or breeds in every man, that embraceth that diftinc-
tion, fuch a falfe notion of repentance, that he can-
not in reafon think hirafelf obliged to fet himfelf upon
the
io2 dgainfi Corruptions and
the mortifying, and the forfaking feveral habits of fin
which he may find himfelf guilty of.
ItNis true, we do admit of the diit motion of mortal
fins and venial, in forne (ank. We do, with the ancient
fathers, allow, that fome fins are of fuch malignity,
or may be committed with fuch aggravating circum-
fiances, that one a£t of them fhall put a man
out of a ftate of grace : they fhall be mortal to
any man that is guilty of them, unlefs he perform a
particular repentance for them. On the other fide,
we fay, that there are fome fins that are confident
with a ftate of grace, and which the bed of God's
children are fubjecl to, and may now and then fall
into j yet, if they ftrive againft them, if they daily
beg pardon for them, thefe fins fhall not be imputed
to them at the day of judgment : Nay, if they die
In them without a particular repentance, yet, if they
be good in the main, if they have repented of all
their fins in general, both known and unknown, thefe
fins fli all do them no mifchief. For itill, notwith-
standing thefe ignorances and infirmities, they are
within the covenant of grace ; and God, for the merits
cf Jefus Chriftj will pafs by and forgive thefe fins in
all thofe who have, for the main of their lives, lived
up to the terms of the gofpel. But yet at the fame
time that we fay this, we hold likewife, that all fins,
in their own nature, and in the rigour of the divine
juftice, are damnable, and deferve God's wrath and in-
dignation ; and that, in all unregenerate men, they are
fo accounted ; and that in hell the damned fufTer the
punifhments as well of their fmall fins, as of their
great ones. So that no fin in itfelf is venial ; but
through the merits of Chrift, fome fins will, even
without a particular repentance, find pardon. But
yet
Innovations in Popijh doftrines . 1 63
yet even the moil venial fins, the mofl light and in-
confiderable offences, if they be indulged, if they be
encouraged, if care be not taken of them, but they
increafe and grow ftrong upon us, and at laft become
habits ; in this cafe, we fay, they are no longer fins
of infirmity, but God will account with us for them,
as wilful deliberate fins. This is the proteitant doc-
trine concerning venial and mortal fins.
But that which the papifts teach in this matter, is
quite another thing. If by their venial fins, they
meant.no more than thofe daily frailties and infirmi-
ties that good and virtuous perfons are fubje£t to,
2nd which they continually drive againft, and do their
utmoft endeavour to overcome ; if this was their no-
'. tion, we fnould not find fault with it : But that which
• they mean by venial fins, is quite another thing.
They teach, that there is a whole kind of fins which
may claim pardon from God as of right ; fuch as if
all of them in the world were put together, could not
equal one mortal fin. They hold them to be fuch, that if
we be never fo much guilty of them, they cannot put
us out of the favour of God \ and it is impoffible that any
man, upon account of them, mould perifh eternally.
Now, I fay, what is the natural confequence of
this doctrine, but to make men perfectly carel efs of
repenting, as to one whole kind of fins ; and fuch fins
too, as they are moft apt and inclinable to fall into
every day, and confequently ought to watch and fortify
their minds more particularly againft them than any
ethers ? But by this doctrine, mens confeiences are
bid to be at perfect eafe, and they are not to difquiet
fhemfelves as to thefe fmall matters 3 tho' in a little
time thefe venial fins (no care being taken of them)
do grow to a vaft number, and become a courfe of
ha-
264. Jgainft Corruptions and
habitual fin : And that, that was a fin of infirmity at
the firft, forwant of repentance and driving againft it,
is grown as wilful and as cuflornary a fin, as any the
man is guilty of.
The application of all this, and the ufe I defire it may
be put to, is this : That we would none of us take our
meafures of repentance from men, what infallibility
foever they pretend to, but frame it according to thofe
models that God, by his prophets and apoftles, and
efpecially by his Son, our Lord Jefus Chrift, hath given
us in the fcriptures, which are the {landing rule by
which all mankind are to be guided : That we would
not be fond of new inventions, that are contrived for
the making the way of falvation eafier than Chrift
hath made it in his holy gofpel : That we would {land
to thofe rules and directions that God hath given us
concerning repentance, viz. A hearty forrow for all
our fins, and -an humble confeflion of them to our
heavenly Father, and forfaking them henceforward, in
the courfe of our lives ; upon which terms only we fhall
find mercy. And confequently, in purfuance of this,
that we would not think that we repent truly, when
we make a full enumeration of our fins to our confef*
for, or when we are in a pang of forrow for our vile-
nefs and many mifcarriages, or even when we make
the mod folemn and fevere refolutions to live better ;
unlefs, by the fruits of our lives, we {hew that thofe
refolutions were effectual. Much lefs {hould we put
off our repentance to futurity, and think it fufRcient
that, in our lafl hour, we do our endeavour to recon-
cile ourfelves to God ; but prefently, as foon as ever
we find ourfelves guilty of any offence, mould humbly
and forrowfully beg pardon, and ufe all thofe means
that God hath appointed for reconciliation.
And
Innovations in Pcpijh doftrines. 165
And far be it from us, in this bufinefs of repentance,
to make fuch a difference of fins that we are guilty of,
as to think that fome may be fafely admitted by us,
without fear of the divine vengeance, tho' others will
prove damnable. For we are to ftrive againft all,
remembering that every fin, indulged and continued
in, may prove fatal and damnable to us.
Laftly, let us, in this affair of repentance, ftick to
Solomon's precept ; which, as it fufHciently directs us
to the truth, fo it fufEciently gives us a caveat againft
all thofe errors by which we may be impofed upon in
1 this affair, viz. Tlmt he only who confejjeth and for*
i fakeih his Jim ", Jh all find mercy.
S£R~
-/jl. •
Abufes and corruptions of the church of'
Rome, in the facrament of the Lord's
Supper. Firft, in their private maffes,
or prieft's receiving alone. Secondly, in
their denial of the cup to the laity,
i Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25.
For I have received of the Lord that which I
clfo deliver' 'd to you, that the Lord Jefus, the
fame night in which he was betray 'd, took
bread :
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and
faid, take, eat : this is my body, which is broken
for you : this do in remembrance of me.
After the fame manner alfo he took the cup, when
he Fad fupped, faying, 'This cup is the new-
t eft anient in my blood : This do ye, as oft as ye
drink it, in remembrance of me.
^ JJIJ ANY abufes, at the time of writing this
^iVwl ^ epiftle, were crept into the church of Co-
S(|yfi |i? rinth, in the matter of the holy commu-
fs^r®iR§^sr nion ; many diforders- they were guilty
of5 when they met together, in the receiving of it.
Thefe
Abufis and corruptions ) Sec. 16 7
.Thefe abufes and diforders the apoftle here complains
)f, and endeavours to reform. The method he takes
[or that purpofe, is to fet before their eyes the primitive
nftitution of that facrament ; the ends for which our
Lord appointed that myftery ; and the manner in which
bis difciples were partakers of it. This he propofes to
:hem as a pattern for them to- follow, or a teft whereby
they might, try their own practices in this matter, whe^
ther they were aliowa'. le or not.
This is the full fcope and defign of thefe words I
have read unto you ; / have received of the Lord that
wvhich ] alfo deliver* d unto you^ that the Lord fefus^ the
lame night that he was betray' 'd, took bread, &c. As if
he had faid, confider well, whether thefe tumults and
fciiforders, which I hear are committed among you when
■you come to receive the Lord's Supper, do fuit with
that account I formerly gave you of the ends and initi-
tution of it ? Do your practices correfoond with the
jdocTrine I deliver'd to you concerning it ? And yet I deT
liver'd nothing but what I had receiv'd before of the
•Lord himfeif. My doctrines about the facrament were
-no fancies or inventions of my own, but what our Sa-
viour taught and prachfed. Hither therefore you are
to look back ; by this rule you are to be tried, whether
your prefent practices be good or bad, be to be approv'd
or condemn'd ; and if you be found guilty,. according
to this rule, you are to reform them.
After this manner doth the apoftle's reafoning pro-
ceed : And the great point that I gather from it is this,
That in all the ordinances and appointments of chri-
ftianity (fuch as the facraments are) the rule and mea-
fure by which all fucceedir.g churches are to fquare their
doctrine and practice, is the original inilitution df our
Lord, and the ufage of the apoftles : And when any
abufes
1 68 Abufes arid corruptions in the
abufes or corruptions happen in a church, as to thefe
matters, they are to be reformed by that primitive
pattern.
It is true, every thing that we find in fcripture, prac-
tis'd by our Saviour or his apoftles, in thofe parts of
chriftian worfhip we are fpeaking of, doth not pre-
cifely oblige all churches. There are many circum-
ftances in the receiving the facrament ; for inftance
(as indeed in every action) which do not enter the na-
ture of the action, but are indifferent to it : And fo may
be thus, or may be otherwife, without tranfgreffing the
original precept, or inftitution ; for inftance, the time,
the place, the pofture, the number of the perfons join-
ing in the action, and the like. In thefe things, our
Saviour's, or the apoftles practice, is no obliging prece-
dent to us ; but we are to be determin'd by the laws of
the church, or the cuftoms of our country. Our Sa-
viour gave the facrament in the evening, and after a
meal ; but this doth not make our receiving it fafting,
and in the morning, to be unlawful. He gave it in an
upper room ; but we may, for all that, fafely receive
it in churches. His giving it to his difciples fitting or
leaning, will be no bar to our taking it kneeling ; no
more than his adminiftring it only to twelve perfons,
will make it an abufe in us to difpenfe it to a full con-
gregation;
We muft therefore diftinguifh between the eflentials
in religious worfhip, and the external accidents that
cloath it ; between what enters the nature of the action,
and what is merely circumftantial. It is with refpect
to the former of thefe, we lay down our propofition,
and of which we underftand it ; and being fo under-
stood, it will be always true in all ages of the church,
that the rule and compafs by which Gvcry church is to
fleer
facrament of the church of Rome, i 6a
freer herfelf, as to her doctrine and practice about the
facrament, is the original inftitution of our Lord, and
the doctrine and practices of the apoftles purfuant there-
upon, as they are delivered to us in the fcriptures : And
' when any particular church Serves from this, and
teaches or practices things inconfiitent with it, it is fo
far guilty of abufes, and (lands in need of reformation.
And indeed, this rule holds not only in matters of
wormip, but in matters of faith alfo. Whatever is de-
liver'd in fcripture by our Saviour and his apoftles as an
article of faith, that is firmly to be believ'd as fuch by
all chriftians; but whatever is not there deliver'd, how
true foever it may be in itfelf, yet no church in the
world can make it an article of faith, or oblige her fub-
jects to believe it as fuch : And on the other fide,
whatever article of religion any church propofeth to us,
if, upon examination, we find it to clalh with, or be
repugnant to the doctrine of the fcripture deliver'd by
our Saviour and his apoftles, it is fo far from being a
chriftian doctrine, how infallible foever the church that
propofeth it pretends to be, that it is a corruption of
chriftianity, and ought to be rejected by all good chri-
ftians. In a word, both in matters of faith, and in
matters of chriftian worfhip, the fcripture is our rule.
What the apoftles have received of our Saviour, and
there deliver'd to us, that is the ftandard both of our
belief and our practice. What they taught, we muft:
embrace. What they order' d in the worfhip of God,
we muft follow. Whatever is taught or order'd either
in matter of faith or facrament, inconfiitent herewith,
we muft reject as an innovation, as an abufe, as a cor-
ruption of the catholic religion.
Thus far I have been led to difcourfe, by the general
reafon of the apoftle's argument here ufed 3 but you fee
Vol. VII. I the
iyo Abufes and corruptions in the
the ufe for which it is brought in the text, is the re-
dreiFmg fome particular abufes that the Corinthians
were guilty of in this matter of the Lord's Supper. To
the fame ufe I (ball henceforward, in this difcourfe,
apply it.
And in truth, never were there greater abufes of this
facrament, than there are at this day ; nay, never was
any precept, or inftitution of chriftianity more pervert-
ed to ends contrary to thofe that were firft intended in
it, than this ordinance of our Lord's. Of this we have
notorious inftances in the prefent avowed doctrine and
practices of that church, which would be thought the
only catholic and apoftolical church, and condemns all
the other churches in the world as heretical and fchif-
jnatical.
It is my deflgn here, faithfully to reprefent to you
what that church teacheth and practifeth concerning
this facrament ; and to examine thofe doctrines and
practices by that rule and ftandard the apoftle here
gives us, viz. The primitive inftitution and practice
of our Lord and his apoftles ; and then I will leave it
to you to judge, whether they have not horribly fpoiled
and depraved this fo facred and efTential an ordinance
of chriftianity ; whether they have not made it quite
another thing than it was at the firft j nay, whether
they have not fo far difguis'd and transform'd it, that
if a primitive chriftian of the apoftles days was to live
again, and be prefent at their mafs-fervice, he would
not be fo far from knowing it to be the facred fupper
that our Lord inftituted, that he would rather take it
for fome paganifh and idolatrous wcrfhip.
I now chufe this argument, becaufe I believe, if you
were duly informed of the practices of the church of
Rome in this matter, and how widely fhe hath fwerved
from
fa cr anient of the church of Rome. lyi
from the fcripture rule, and from the primitive practice
of' the chriftian church ; and that not only in a circum-
ftance or two, but in things that touch the very effence
and nature of the facrament ; you will be much con-
flrm'd in the proteftant religion you do profefs, and be
convinc'd what great and demonftrative reafons we have
why we ought not to join in communion with that
church of Rome upon thofe terms fhe ofFereth it.
The facrament is not a matter of notion or fpecula-
tion ; we cannot fay of it, as we are apt to do of other
things controverted between us, " It is a fchool- point,
u about which our doctors are not agreed : and till they
" be agreed, both fides may fafely, without danger of
ct falvation, hold their opinions". No, it is a matter of
practice ; it is the moft folemn part of the chriftian wor-
fhip, and we are all infinitely concern'd, that we be right
both in our notions and practices about it ; even juft as
much concern'd as we are, that we worfiiip God in a
right way. And therefore if upon trial it be found, that
the church of Rome is corrupt, as to this thing ; that
they perform not this worfhip in the way that Chrifl
inftituted it, and his apoftles practised it, but in a way
quite different ; nay, perhaps, contrary; I hope we
fhall none of us be very forward to leave our own
church, and go over to theirs, whatever other plaufible
arguments they offer for the perfuading us.
It is the policy of the Romifh factors, when they
deal with proteftants, in order to the perverting them,
to keep themfelves within genera] terms and commen-
dations of the catholic church. Many and long ha-
rangues they will make of the infallibility of St. Peter,
and of the pope's being his fucceffor ; that there is but
one church in which falvation is to be had, and that
their particular Roman church is that church ; and they
I 2 can
zyz Abufes and corruptions in the
.can prove it by twenty marks of the true church, an-
tiquity, fuccefFion, perpetual vifibiJity, and all the reft :
whereas our church is but of yeflerday's ftanding,
and was never heard of before Luther. While they
amufe their hearers with thefe general encomiums of
their church, and invectives againft ours, all which in-
deed look very plaufible (tho' yet, in truth, there is no-
thing in the whole argument but craft and fophiftry)
it is no wonder if they now and then entangle unwary
.pei fons in their net : for not one of a thoufand is a
competent judge of thefe kind of arguments ; and they
know thofe that they deal with are not Co well ftudied
in hifrory and antiquity, as to be able to confute them.
And therefore be their arguments true or falfe, it is
but affirming ftrongly, when they meet with a good-
natur'd credulous man, and their work is done ; But
let us but get them out of thefe generalities, and bring
them to particulars, and the cafe will be otherwife.
Here even an ordinary underftanding, that is but
well acquainted with the fcripture , will be able to
find fome footing, and will not be fo eafily impofed
upon. Nay, as to feveral particulars that are contro-
verted between us and the Romanics, a proteftant,
that tolerably well underftands his religion, will not
only be able to keep his ov/n ground, as to thefe par-
ticulars ; but from hence will be able to draw arguments
that will overthrow thofe general doctrines I before
mentioned, upon which the adverfary lays his greateft
ftrefs ; and which, if he can once bring us to, he is fure
he hath us. For inftance, let the particular we pitch
upon be the daily fervice of the Roman church, pre-
ferred by their mafs-book, and reforted to every day by
all thofe that have opportunity, and any fenfe of devo-
tion. The chief part of this daily fervice is the com-
munion,
1
facrament of the church of Rome. ty$
munion, or the celebration of the facrament of the
Lord's Supper. If now it be plainly and demonstra-
tively proved, that in this their fervice, as they practife
it, there are many great errors ; many things believed
and pracWed, which are utterly inconfiftent with the
doctrine and practice of Chrifr. and his apoftles in this
matter ; of the guilt of all which, every one that joins
in the fervice is a partaker ; I fay, if a protectant be but
able to prove this one particular (as certainly every one
that competently underftands their religion, and under--
{lands ours, may be eafily able to do) as he will not be-'
eafJy beat off from his hold, as to this particular, by
their general arguments ; as lie will be afraid to com-
municate in fuch a worfhip as he believes to be unchrif-
tian, and will draw fo great a guilt upon him ; fo he
will be able to draw an argument from thence, that
will effectually confute all their pretences to antiquity,
apoftolicalnefs, and the reft of the fpecious characters
that they would ftamp upon themfelves. For how can
that church be an infallible church, which teacheth fo
many errors in the chiefeft part of the chriftian worfhip,
the holy facrament of the Lord's Supper ? Or how can
that be an apoftolical church that practifeth fo differ-
ently, fo contrarily to the apoftles of our Lord in this
particular ? Nay, how can this church be any found
member of the catholic univerfal church of Chrift, that
hath fo far departed from the inftitution of our Saviour,
and the ufage of the primitive church in the higheit
myftery of the chriftian religion, that fcarce any one
that knows how things were then taught and order'd
in this matter, and how they are taught and order'd
now, would believe it to be the fame myftery ?
I have faid enough of the ufefulnefs of this argument,
I come now to the argument itfeif, that is3 to examine
J 3 the
174 Abufes and corruptions in the
theRomifh doctrine and practices about the facrament
of the Lord's Supper, by the rule the apoftle here lays
down ; that is, the inftitution of Chrift, and the prac-
tice and tradition of the apoftles : And I am confident,
upon the whole evidence, it will eafily appear to every
unprejuoic'd perfon, that we have not charg'd that
church with any thing in this matter, but what is too
plain and evident to be denied. I fhall not infift here
on their making (even facraments, all of equal autho-
rity, all equally neceffary to falvation (though not to
every particular perfon) all equally conferring grace ;
whereas, by all we can gather from fcripture, Chrift
never inftituted more than two, Baptifm, and the Lord's
Supper. I fhall not here infift on their having the
whole fervice or office of the facrament, in the Latin
tongue -3 a language which none but the learned do un-
derftand, and which, confequently, the people are not
edified by ; which practice, for that reafon, the apoftle
St. Paul doth feverely reprove in the Corinthians. Nei-
ther mall I infift on the prieft's muttering the words of
eonfecration to himfelf, fo as that none of the congre-
gation fhall hear what he fays, tho* it be without any
precedent in the ancient times. Neither fhall I infift
on the multitude of mafTes or facraments that they al-
low to be celebrated in the fame church on the fame
day, and even at the fame time, at the inftance of any
one that will be at the charge of purchasing them : The
price indeed is not great ; no more than twelve- pence
a mafs ; but what a vile proftitution of the blefled fa-
crament this is, every body may judge.
Thefe corruptions and abufes of the facrament in the
church of Rome, though they be very great, yet I pafs
them over, becaufe they will appear fmall and incon-
fiderable, in comparifon of thofe I come now to men-
tion to you. Five
fact 'anient of the church of Rome. 1 75
Five grievous errors and abufes we charge the church
of Rome with in the matter of the facrament ; fo
grievous, that, if they be found guilty of any one of
them, no man that reads the fcripture, can believe that
the facrament, as they hold it, can be the fame with
that which our Saviour inftituted.
1. The firft is, That whereas in every mafs that is
faid in that church (and there are every day (aid many
thoufands) they have a communion ; yet there is none
communicates but the prieft : So that here there is eve-
ry day, in the church of Rome, a communion without
a communion.
2. Secondly, That at thofe folemn times when they
will allow the people to communicate with the prieft in
the holy facrament, yet they rob them of half of it ; for
they will not allow any but the prieft, who then admi-
nifters, to receive the cup : So that here, tho' there be
a communion, yet it is but half of the communion that
our Saviour appointed.
3. Thirdly, They have transform'd the facrament
into a facrifice ; whereas the only myftery of it confifts
in this, that thereby Chrift gives his body and blood3
in a fpirkual manner, to be fed upon by us ; they have
made a new bufinefs of it : for in every facrament they
pretend to offer up our Saviour's very body and blood
as a facrifice to God.
4. Fourthly, Whereas in this facrament, according
to our Saviour's inftitution, there is a material part,
and a fpiritual -} the fign and the thing fignified j the
bread and wine to be received for our bodily fuftenance,
and the body and blood of Chrift for the food of our
fouls j they have quite taken away the former from us :
For they will not allow us to believe, that the fign, the
fvmbol, the bread and wine which we think we receive,
X 4 and
ij6 Abufes and corruptions in the
and eat and drink, is either fign or fymbol, or bread
and wine, but the very natural body and blood of
Chrift.
5. Firthly, and laftly, This very bread (as we are
apt to call it) which we receive and eat, and the wine
that the pried drinks, they require us to worfhip and
adore as very God Almighty ; and that under pain of
damnation.
Thefe are the points and articles in which we accufe
the church of Rome to have grievoufiy corrupted and
depraved the chrifrian doctrine and practice in this mat-
ter of the facrament. And I (hall now endeavour to
make this charge good, by a particular confideration of
each of them.
The firit abufe we charge them with is, their private
maffes. In every mafs that is faid in the Roman church,
there is a communion ; for that, as I faid, is the prin-
cipal part of the mafs-fervice. But now, as that fervice
is daily perform'd among them, the cuftom is for none
but the prieft to communicate 5 he confecrates the facra-
ment, and then offers it up to God 5 and then receives
it in both kinds himfelf. But tho5 there be a thoufand
people prefent. at the fervice ; nay, perhaps, feveral
priefts among them, yet none are partakers with him 5
none but he tafles either the bread or wine : All that
they have to do is, only to behold and wormip. This is
the courfe of their daily fervice ; and this every one that
hath ever been at mafs may know to be true : And the
council of Trent, which hath the fame authority among
them that the fcriptures have among us, is fo far from
difowning this practice, that {he commends it. I will
give it you in the very words of the council : The holy
Jynod doth not condemn thofe ?najjes in which the prieji
only communicates, as if they were private and unlawful %
but
facr anient of the church cf Rome. 1 y'j
but doth approve of them, and alfo commend them. And
one of the canons of that council is exprefied in thefe
words : TVhofoever affirms, That the maffies, in which
the prieji only doth facramentally communicate, are un-
lawful^ and therefore to he abolijhed, lei him be accurfed;
I now appeal to any one, who hath read what the
gofpels, and what St. Paul fpeaks of the facrament,,
whether this be not a great abufe, and whether this
practice of theirs be not directly contradictory to the
ends and defign of the facrament, as our Saviour inftitu--
ted it. The facrament was intended for a communion,,
as the fcripture teacheth, and as all chriftian writers'
■have taught 5 and the very council of Trent, by the
terms which fhe ufeth of the prieft's communicating,,
feems to acknowledge : And yet, you fee, here is a fa-
crament adminifter'd, and yet no communion. The
prieft is indeed faid to communicate, but with whom ?
Why, none but himfelf. It is juft as good fen fe as if"
you fhould fay, a man communicates a fecret, or a my*
fiery to himfelf.
Our Saviour hlejfed the bread \ and brake it , and gave
it to his difciples. He took the cup, and bid them all
drink of it. And this the apoftles practised after him,
St. Paul, difcourfmg of this facrament, makes it to be
the fign or fymbol of our union one with another.
One of the ends of its inftitution, according to him,
was the jewing all chriftians together in one. common
body, fociety, or fraternity. This he exprefly tells us,.
1 Cor. x. 17. t We being many ', are one bread and one
body, becaufe we are all partakers of that one bread, viz.
the facramental bread.
If now his doctrine be true, it is.impoflible that any
facrament, that is folemniz'd in the way we have been
fpeaking of, can be a true facrament. If one great bu~
1 ^ finefs
17S Abufes and corruptions in the
finefs of the facrament be the fignifying the union of
all chriftjans in one body, which fignification is made
by their all partaking of the fame facramental bread ;
then furely that fervice, in which none partakes of that
bread but the prieft, cannot be thought a true or a juft
facrament ; becaufe the union and fociety of chriftians
one with another is not there fignified or reprefented.
But let us leave the fcriptures, for it is certain, they
are (o far from favouring the popifh practice in this
matter, that they quite contradict it. Is there any
countenance for fuch kind of private mafles we are
ipeaking of, where the prieft communicates alone,
from any doctrine of the fathers ? from any order of
councils ? from any practice or ufage of any one chri-
Itian church for many ages after Chrift ? bating what
Chrift and his apoftles have delivered in this matter, i£
they can give us one inftance from antiquity, that any
fuch private mafles were ever approv'd of, or praclifed,
or fo much as thought of, it will gain fome credit to
their caufe : but this they cannot give us. The fathers
never fpeak of the facrament, but as of a communion ;
and they feverely reprove (as we ought to do now) all
thofe who, when they have opportunity of receiving the
facrament, do not receive it. The old canons are fo
fevere againft thofe perfons that come to church, and
join in the prayers and fermons, and yet refufe to par-
take in the facraments, that they declare thorn excom-
municate fo» their neglect in that point. And there
cannot, for the term of fix hundred years (I believe I
might almoft double the term) any inftance be given,
that any mafs was perform'd in any church, wherein
the prieft only received the facrament, and none of the
congregation with him. This I alilrm fo confidently,
becaufe our proteftants have conftamly challeng'd the
papifts
facrament of the church of Rome. 17 J
papifts in all thefe points, and were never yet tolerably
an fwe r'd.
But we need no further argument againft this prefent
practice of the church of Rome, than the very name
by which they call their office of the facrament, that is>
the mafs. If any one will lock into their own au-
thors, concerning the notion and fignification of this
term»w/j,'he will, even in them, find this account
given of it : that that which we call mafs, or mijfa in
Latin, is the communion-office ; and it was therefore
call'd miffa or mafs by the ancients, becaufe, when that
came to be faid, all thofe who did not intend to partake
of the facrament, were difmifs'd the congregation : the
deacon told them they were to be gone. And in the
old rituals of the church of Rome, we find there were
peculiar officers appointed, whofe employment it was
to turn out of the church all thofe who did not join in
the communion. This, it is certain, is the notion of
the old mafs \ and from hence it is as certain, that the
old Roman church never dreamed of private mafTes,
wherein the prieft alone fhould communicate, but that
fome devout perfcns always communicated with him 5
otherwife, according to this rule, the prieft muft have
been left all alone by himfelf.
The fecond great point wherein we accufe the church
of Rome to have departed from ChrifVs inftitution? and
the apoftolical practice in this bufinefs of the facrament,
is their denying the cup to the people.
In their daily and ordinary facraments we have feen,
the people do not communicate at all, which is a great
abufe. But this is not all, even at thofe folemn times,
when it is the cuftom for the people to receive the fa-
crament (as every one, by their canons, is obliged at
leaft to receive once a year) yet they are not allowed
to
150 Abufesand corruptions in the
to receive it in both kinds, as our Saviour ordainM it ;
but they only receive the bread. None but the prieft
who confecrates hath the benefit of the cup ; and this
they hold a point fo neceflary, and fo indifpenfable, that
the council of Conftance excommunicates all thofe mi-
niders that (hall dare to give the cup of the facrament
to any lay-man ; and, in purfuance of what was then
ordain'd, the council of Trent hath made thafe two ca-
nons : sc If any one (hall fay, that all the faithful peo-
*c pie of Chrift are bound, by virtue of any command-
<c ment of God, or as of neceflity to (alvation, to re-
44 ceive the facrament of the euchariff. in both kinds,
ce let him be accurfed — And — If any one fhall fay, that
cc there were not juff, caufes and reafons moving the
<c church to adminifter the facrament to the laity only
C{ under one kind, that of bread ; or fhall fay, that the
4C church hath herein erred, let him be accurfed."
This is the law of the church, and their practice is
conformable thereto j as every perfon that hath received
the facrament among them very well knows.
But now let any one, that hath ever read the New-
teftament, be judge between us and them in this matter.
Our Saviour (as appears by the gofpel) the fame night
he was betrayed, took bread', and when he had given
thanks., he brake it, and gave it to his difciples, faying?
.take, eat, this is my body, which is given for you, do
this in remembrance of me. Likewife he took the cup,
and when he had given thanks, he gave to them, faying^
drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new-
teflament, which is fiedfor you, for theremiffion ofjins*.
Matt, xxvi, Mark xiv. Luke xxii. Thefe are the
words of the inftitution ; and I appeal to any man living,
whether, according to thefe words of the inftitution,
our Lord did not make the cup every whit as neceflary,
as
facrament of the church of Rome. r$f
as eiTential to his facrament of the (upper, as he made
' the bread : I am confident none will or can den)f it.
If there be any difference, he hath laid more ftrefs upon
drinking the cup, than upon eating the bread ; for, as
to the bread, he only faid, take eat ; which is an inde-
finite command, and doth not neceffarily imply, that
all there prefent were concern'd in it ; it might be fpo-
ken only to one or more of them. But when he comes
to fpeak of -the cup, he faith, Drink ye ALL of it.
By which he gives exprels command^ that all there
prefent mould be partakers. So that from this differ-
ence in the expreflion, one would be apt to think that
he meant to caution his difciples, the fucceeding chri-
ftians, againft that corruption, which he forefaw wouFd
be introduced into his church, of receiving the facra-
ment of the bread without the cup.
It is true, when we urge this inftitution of our Savi-
our to the Romanifts, they have this to fay for them-
felves ; " It is no wonder that our Saviour adminifter'd
" the facrament in both kinds to his difciples at the in-
ts ftitution, for they were all priefts that were partakers
tc of it. The apoftles who then communicated were
cs clergymen ; and it cannot from hence be concluded,
" that the laity have any right to the fame privilege."
They grant indeed, that the apoftles were lay-men,
and reprefented the whole body of chriftians when they
received the bread y but when our Saviour faid thefe
words, Hoc facite. Do this in remembrance of me, by
thofe very words he ordain'd them priefts t, and thefe
words were fpoken before he gave them the cup : {o
that when he came to difpenfe the other part of the fa-
crament, that is, the wine to them, they then did not
receive as lay-men, as the reprefentatives of the people,
but as clergymen.
This,
1 82 Abufes and corruptions in the
This, tho' it be wonderfully fubtle, yet it is (o far
taken notice of by the council of Trent, that they have
made this canon, " That whoever fhould fay, that
" Chrift, when he fpoke thofe words, hoc facite, Do
iC this in remembrance of me, did not by thofe words
ff ordain his apoftles to be priefts, let him be accurfed."
But by this curfe, notwithftanding how dreadful foever
it be, they will never be able to prove that the apoftles
were more priefts, more in holy orders, when they
drank the wine, than when they eat the bread. If we
will confult the fcripture and antiquity, we fhall he
convinced that they were perfect lay-men in both the
actions, and they received no orders or confecration to
the priefthood till after our Saviour rofe from the dead ;
for then, when he breath'd upon them (immediately
before his afcenfion into heaven) and faid, Receive ye
the Holy Ghojl^ whofe foever fins ye remit, they are re-
mitted unto them, and whofe foever fins ye retain^ they
are retained, John xx. 22, 23. then they were en-
ter'd into holy orders, and not before. And thus much
of the words of the inftitution of our Lord.
As for the practice of the apoftles, nothing in the
world is clearer than that, in their days, all faithful
people received it in both kinds; and it was then
thought neceffary they fhould do fo. This is fufBci-
ently plain, from what St. Paul difcourfeth to the Co-
rinthians, in the words after my text : As oft (fays he)
as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do pew forth
the Lord's death till he come. The fame St. Paul like-
wife, in the 10th chapter of this epiftle, ver. 16. gives
us this account of the facrament : The cup of bleffing
(fays he) which we hlefs, is it not the communion of the
blood of Chrijl f The bread which we break, is it not
the communion of the body of Chrift f If now, this be
the
facrament of the church of Rome. 1 8 3
the ufe and the end of thofe elements of bread and wine
in the facrament, why then we may fafely conclude,
that the one of them is as efiential to the facrament as
the other ; and that both are indeed neceflary. For I
would afk, is not the communion of Chrift's blood as
neceflary to our falvation as the communion of his
body ? And the communion of the body as that of the
blood ? Certainly, none will deny it. We are both to
eat the fiefh of Chrift, and to drink his blood, if we
mean to have eternal life. If fo, then it plainly fol-
lows, that that which reprefents his blood in the facra-
ment, is as neceflary to be taken, as that which repre-
fents his body : and fo vice verfa.
But the papifts make a very good fhift to bring them-
felves off from this difficulty, by faying, That the
whole perfect Chrift, as he lived in the fiefh, is con-
tained in the bread alone : fo that by receiving the
bread, you do virtually receive the cup alfoj for you
receive both the body and blood of Chrift : and who-
foever denies this, is, by the council of Trent, pro-
nounced accurfed. This is that with which they flop
the mouths of all thofe difciples of theirs that defire fa-
tisfa<Stion in this bufinefs. But if this be fo, I would
fain know for what purpofe Chrift inftituted the cup ?
If his difciples, in receiving the bread, had received
both his body and blood, what need was there after-
ward, that he mould give them the cup, and call it
the New-teftament in his blood ? Tho' God be never
wanting in neceiTaries, yet he never exceeds in fuper-
fluities.
Again : If partaking of the bread be the communion
both of the body and blood of Chrift, why fhould St.
Paul, as we have feen, make fuch a diftinclion between
the bread and the cup, calling one, The communion of
the
1 84 Ahufes and corruptions in the
the body of Chriji^ and the other, "The communion of
his blood? Laftly, We would afk of them, fince, ac-
cording to their doctrine, both the body and the blood
are received in the bread, what is it which the prieft,
who adminifters, receives when he takes the cup?
(for he always receives in both kinds.) Is it to him, A
communion of the blood of Chri/i, or is it not ? If it be
not, for what end doth he receive it ? If it be, why
then are the people denied it ? Certainly, they have as
much right to have communion in Chrift's blood as the
priefts have. If the cup be of no neceffity, or no ad-
vantage to him, he had better let it alone. If it be,
then there is all the reafon in the world, that the peo-
ple fhould be fharers of it as well as he.
The truth is, This practice of theirs of denying the
cup to the laity, is every way fo unchriftian, fo un-
reafonable, that one would wonder how ever it mould
obtain among thofe that call themfelves a chriftian
church. It is, as we have feen, directly contrary to
the inftitution of our Saviour, and the doctrine and
practice of his apoftles. And they cannot fay of this,
as they fay of fome others of their doctrines, that they
have it from the tradition of the church ; for they can-
not produce one teftimony out of any one author, that
for a thousand years after Chrift it was ever known that
any church in the world, no not the Roman church
herfelf, ever adminiftred the facrament to the people
in one kind. And this their own authors do confefs;
One inftance indeed 1 ought to except, and that is, the
practice of the Manichees, which St. Augultine makes
mention of. They indeed held, that the cup of the
facrament was an abominable thing ; and for this rea-
fon, becaufe they taught wine was not of God's crea-
tion, but of the devil's, But thefe kind of people (as
facrametit cf the church of Rem e. 185
all the world knows) were juftly deleft ed as moft
lewd heretics. If the church of Rome will plead
this practice of theirs for their precedent, in the mat-
ter we charge them with, much good do them with it.
But as for others we are fure they have none.
The firft effablimment of this way in the Roman
church, and that is the only church in the world
wherein it doth yet obtain, was by the council of Con-
ftance, which I mentioned before : which council was
: held about 260 years ago: and, by a good token, it
is the fame council by whofe order the famous John
Hus, the forerunner of Luther, was burnt for a here-
j tic, altho' they had before given him fafe conduct.
; About 130 years after, that is, about 130 years ago,
came the famous council of Trent, wherein popery
was formed into that fhape it now hath, and eftabliili-
' ed by a law, which it never was before. In this coun-
| cil many tough debates there were, about the bufi-
nefs we are fpeaking of, whether the people ihouid
have the cup reftored to them or no. The ambafla-
dors both of the Emperor and the king of France, and
of moil of the princes of Germany, did very earneftly,
in the name of their feveral matters, petition the coun-
cil for it; and reprefented to them the dangerous eon-
fequences that would follow, if the kitty were not al-
lowed the facrament in both kinds : but with all their
arguments they prevailed nothing. So powerful was
the pope's faction at that holy fynod, that agairift the
ftrongeff. reafons in the world, they carried it for the
continuing that facrilegious denial of the cup, that the
former council had brought in. Nay, fo zealous was
one of the cardinals for this innovation ,. that he." pro-
" tefted that he would never give his confent that the
" people fhould have a cup of fuch deadly poilbn ad--
6t miniffred
1 86 Abufes and corruptions in the
<c miniftred to them, as that cup was that they de
<c fired : and it was better they fhould die than bi
*' cured by fuch a remedy." And what was th
reafon, think you, for all this heat and zeal againft ft
plain an inititution of Chrift ? Why truly, the greatef
that I could ever find, in all their difputes, are theft
three :
Firft, They faid thofe that defired the cup were dif-
affected perfons, and not true catholics ; and if the)
fhould condefcend to them in that particular, the)
would be fo far from being fatisfied, that they wouk
take occafion, from that eafmefs of theirs, to makt
further encroachments upon them, and would be foi
having their prayers in a known language, and fuch
other things as the Roman church could not allow.
Secondly, They faid the clergy were already in fuf-
ficient contempt, and if they mould let the people en-
joy the fame privileges in the facraments with them, it j
would make way for a further contempt of them y for
it would, in a manner, render the prieft and the peo-
ple equal.
Thirdly, They faid the church of Rome cannot err,
But that church, in the afore-named council of Con-
ftance, had taken the cup of the facrament away from
the people, and given good reafon for it. If therefore
they fhould now grant it to them again, it would be
a fhrewd argument to the heretics, that the church
had been before in a miftake, which to fuppofe was
intolerable.
Thefe are really the chiefeft reafons that they bring
for the continuing this practice of half-communion,
againft the earneft defires and endeavours of moft of
the princes of Chriftendom ; and are they not, think
you j very formidable ones ? Do they not ftrongly and
convincingly
facrament of the church of Rome. 187
convincingly prove the thing they are brought for ?
Chrift and his apoftles gave the facrament in both
kinds, and ordered it mould be fo done for ever ; and
all the churches in the world have always pra£Hfed ac-
cordingly, except the church of Rome, for fome 30O
years laft paft. But now, for fear the laity fliould be
thought of equal dignity with the clergy, and for fear,
if what the church of Rome had done once amifs, and
againft ChrifVs inftitution, mould be amended, that
church Uiould fuffer, as to her credit, and the reputa-
tion of her infallibility : for thefe confiderations, that
holy and univerfal fynod, notwithitanding ChrifFs in-
ftitution, notwithstanding the apoftles practice, not-
withftanding the ufage of the catholic church for fo
many ages, have order'd, that " none, in a public fa-
44 crament, (hall communicate in both the elements of
44 the bread and wine, but only the prieft that confe-
" crates."
This is the plain ftate of the matter ; I have not
injur'd them, nor have I abufed you in reprefenting
it. I am fure I have dealt faithfully, and have faid
nothing concerning matter of fact:, but what I have
from their own books. As for my reafonings, and
the confequences drawn from them, I leave to you?
and all confidering men, to judge of.
And thus much is fufficient to have fpoken of thefe
two firfV abufes of the facrament in the church of
Rome : The reft I (hall take another opportunity to
fpeak to.
SER,
Concerning the facrifice of the Mafs.
The fecond Sermon on the fame Text.
iCoR.xi. 23, 24, 25.
For I have received of the Lord that which I
aljo delivered to you, that the Lord J ejus, the
fame night in which he was betray* d* took
- bread ;
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and
/aid, take, eat : this is my body, which is bro-
ken Jor you : this do in remembrance oj me.
After the Jame manner aljo he took the cup, when
he had Jupped, Joying, This cup is the new
iejlament in my blood : this do ye, as ojt as ye
drink it, in remembrance oj me.
HAVE made one difcourfe upon this text
already. The defign of thefe words, or
the end for which they come in here, is
the redreffing fome abufes that were in
the Corinthian church in the matter of the blefled fa-
crament of the fupper.
The
Concerning the facrifice cf the Mafs. 1 89
The general doctrine which we are to obferve from
ihem is this, That in all the ordinances and appoint-
ments of chiiftianity, particularly that of the facra-
ment, the rule and meafure by which all fucceeding
churches are to fquare their doctrines and practices is,
the original institution of our Lord, and the ufage of
the apoftles ; and when any abufes or corruptions hap-
pen in a church, as to thefe matters, by that primi-
tive pattern they are to be reform 'd.
The ufe I meant to put this doctrine to, was to en-
quire and examine by this rule, whether there were
not grievous abufes and corruptions in the church of
Rome, not only tolerated, but openly avowed and
maintained at this day in the fei vice of the holy com-
munion ?
And here I undertook faithfully to reprefent their
doctrines and practices in this matter > and, on the
other fide, to reprefent the doctrine and practice of
Chrift and his apoftles, and to leave you and all un- r
prejudiced people to judge, whether that church hath
not departed from the primitive rule, the inftitution of
Chrift, and the doctrine and practice of the firft chri-
stians ; and confequently, whether fhe be not guilty of
great abufes and corruptions ?
Five grievous errors and abufes we charged the
church of Rome with, in the matter of the facrament.
The two firft of them have been confidered, and
largely fpoken to. I come therefore now to the third
general point wherein we accufe her ; and that is,
That of a facrament they have made It a facrifice ;
whereas the defign of Chrift, in the inftitution of it,
was to feaft us at his table, by making us partakers of
his body and blood in a fpiritual manner ; they have
made the great defign of it to be the prieft's feafting
God
190 Concerning the facrament of the Mafs*
God almighty with the body and blood of his Son, h
offering it up to him in facrifice.
In fpeaking to which point, I {hall do thefe thra
things :
1. Firft, Give you an account how far we own th<
fervice of the facrament to be a facrifice.
2. Secondly, Give you a particular account of the
doctrine of the church of Rome in this matter,
in what fenfe fhe holds the facrament to be a fa-
crifice.
3. Thirdly, Shew you, by feveral arguments, the
difagreeablenefs of this doctrine of theirs with the
inftitution of Chrift, the tenor of the holy fcrip-
tures, and the reafon of the thing.
I. Firft of all, I fhall acquaint you with the prote-
ftant do&rine in this matter of the facrament.
We do not deny, that the whole office of the com-
munion, as it is ordered in our liturgy, and as it is
performed by us, may be called a facrifice 5 nor do we
Fcruple to call this fervice the chriftian facrifice by way
of eminency, becaufe we find the ancient fathers fre-
quently fo {tiling it : but then, it is only upon thefe
three accounts we give it that name ; and, upon exa-
mination, it will be found, that it was for the fame
reafon, and in the fame notions, that it was fo called
hy antiquity.
1. Firft of all. In this fervice we bring our offerings
to God for the ufe of the poor. We do not appear
before him empty, but make a prefent to him of our
fubftance, every one according to his ability; whereby
we both acknowledge him for the Lord of the world,
and the giver of all the good things we enjoy, and alfo
fhew our charity to our indigent brethren, with which
kind of facrifice St. Paul tells us, God is well pleafed.
1 Thefe
Concerning the jacrament of the Mafs. 191
Thefe gifts of ours our church calleth by the name of
rfferings and oblations -} and in the firft folemn prayer
n this office, we beg of God to accept thofe our alms
ind oblations : and this is the name that both fcrip-
:ure and antiquity give to thefe gifts ; and thefe obla-
tions make up one great part of that unbloody facri-
fice of chriftians that the fathers fo often fpeak of. It
is true, in this we differ from the primitive church,
that we now offer to God only in money, but they
always, befides other things, brought bread and wine
in kind ; which, after it had been folemnly prefented
to God, the prieft took a part of it, and, by confecra-
tion, made of it the body and blood of Chrift, as the
language of thofe times was ; which being done, he
diftributed to the people : fo that the people, having
offered to God, were by him feafted at his table with
part of their own offerings, as the manner was in the
Jewifh peace-offerings, with which this chriftian fer-
vice hath a great affinity. This was the ancient cu-
stom, and in this we at this d3y differ from them ;
but the thing wherein we differ is fo very inconfidera-
ble, and fo no way relating to the effence of the facra-
ment ; and, withal, the reafon for altering the cuftom,
and bringing in oblations of money, inftead of bread
and wine, in thofe times, fo good, that we ought not
to be concerned at the difference, or to wifh the revi-
val of the old cuftom : for we offer to God as well as
they, and for the fame purpofe that they did, and our
offerings are as properly a facrifice as theirs was.
That which I defire to infer from hence is this,
That, very probably, from this account ] have given
of the ancient oblations of the chriftians, we may be
able to difcover whence it was, and upon what grounds,
the popifh facrifice of the mafs, wherein they pretend
to
igi Concerning the facrifice of the Mafs.
to offer the body and blood of Chrift, came into the
church. It plainly came from a miftake of .that an-
cient facrifice, or from not diftinguifhing that facrifice
from that other office of confecration of the elements,
which followed, in order to be performed by the
prieft.
They who introduced the popifh facrifice, knew very
well, from hiftory, that the communicants brought
bread and wine as an offering to God when they ap-
proached the Lord's table ; and that the prieft did fo-
lemnly prefent thefe offerings of the people to God
upon his altar, as their facrifice, and implored his ac-
ceptance of them as fuch. And this facrifice they
mioht perhaps, in fome authors, find to be called the
facrifice of the body and blood of Chrift -, becaufe, that
of thofe offerings, as I faid, it was the cuftom to take
fome part, and to confecrate them for the elements,
to be received by all faithful chriftians, as the body and
blood of Chrift. But, not attending to the order of
thefe two ferv'ces, nor minding how they were quite
diftincl: the one from the other, they have jumbled
them into one and the fame thing. And whereas be-
fore, the people, or the prieft in their name, only of-
fered to God their alms and oblations, now they make
the prieft to offer the very body and blood of Jefus
Chrift. It is true, the prieft always offered the peo-
ples prefent unto God, but not under the notion of
Chrift's body and blood, but under the notion of their
oblations of the fruits of the earth. It can never be
(hewed, that after he had once confecrated them for
the body and blood of Chrift, he offered them in the
name of the people, but only diftributed to them to
eat and drink. In the firft of thefe fervices, we all
grant the people offered a facrifice, or the prieft In
their
Concerning the facrifice of the Mafs. j 9 3
their name ; but when chat facrifice was offered, and
fet upon God's table, then it was no longer confuiered
as a facrifice to God, but as a feaft with which God
i entertained his guefts.
2. But fecondiy, That which our church calls the
offertory, that is, the oblation of our alms, is not the
only {Q[\(e wherein we acknowledge the fervice of the
holy communion to be a facrifice -, for, befides thofe
oblations of our fubftance, we do alfo in that fervice
offer up, in the mod folemn manner, our prayers for
■ ourfelves, and our interceilions for the whole church ;
our praifes likewife and our thankfgivings ; and laftly,
ourfelves, our fouls and bodies 3 all thefe we offer up
as a facrifice to God, and, in the fenfe of antiquity,
they are a main part of the chriftian facrifice.
3. But then thirdly, To compleat the chriflian fa-
crifice, we offer up both the aforefaid oblations or fa-
crifices with a particular regard to that one facrifice of
Chrift which he offer d upon the crofr, and which is
now livelily reprefented before our eyes in the fymhols
of bread and wine. That facrifice of his we now com-
memorate before God ; we plead the merits and the
virtue of it before him, and for the merits, and by the
virtue whereof, we have the confidence to offer up un-
to God the two forenamed facriflces, and the confi-
dence to hope they fhall be accepted. And in this
fenfe we will not deny, that we offer up even Chrift
to his Father ; that is, we commemorate to God what
his Son hath fuffered ; we reprefent to him the ineitim-
able merits of his pafiion ; and we defire God, for the
fake of that, to be at peace with us ; to hear our pray-
fers, and accept our oblations. In this fenfe, I fay,
every proteftant offers Chrift to his Father; and it is
in this fenfe that St. Chryfoftome fpeaks, when he
Vol. VII. K "fays,
194 Concerning the facrifice of the Mafs.
fays, M What then, do we not offer every day ? Yes,
" we offer, by making a commemoration of his death :
" And we do not make another facrifice every day,
*c but always the fame, or rather a remembrance of
<c that facrifice." And in the fame fenfe (fays Eufe-
bius) " We facrifice a remembrance of the great fa-
" crifice."
In thefe three things confifted the whole of the chri-
flian facrifice, as it was held by the primitive fathers ;
they firft offer'd to God of their fubfbnce, then they
©ffer'd their prayers and their praifes, and at the fame
time they commemorated to God the death and facri-
fice of Chrift, by the merits of which they hoped and
they prayed, that both their oblations and themfelves
might be accepted.
And thefe three things our church obferves at this
day ', for, after we have made our offerings, and begg'd
God's acceptance of them, as I faid before, we come
to beg of God that he would " mercifully accept our
<c facrifice of praife and thankfgiving \ and we humbly
cc befeech him to grant, that, by the merits and death
16 of his Son Jefus Chrift (which we have now com-
<c memorated) and through faith in his blood, we and
<c all his whole church may obtain remiffion of our
<c fins, and all other benefits of his paffion. And we
*' here prefent unto him ourfelves, our fouls and bo-
" dies, as a lively facrifice to him , yet being unwor-
Ci thy, through our manifold fins, to offer unto him
*c any facrifice, we befeech him to accept this our
<c bounden duty and fervice -3 not weighing our merits,
" but pardoning our offences, through Jefus Chrift
" our Lord." So that having offered up our facrifice
of alms, and our facrifice of devotions ; for the ren-
dering thefe two acceptable*, we plead, we comme-
morate,
Concerning the facrifice of the Mafs. 1 9$
snorate, before God, the facrifice of our Lord Jefus
Chrift.
This is the whole of the chriftian facrifice, as the
ancients underftood it; and, if the church of Rome
would be content with fuch a facrifice as this, I know
none that would oppofe them. And I am fure, if they
go further, and pretend to any other facrifice than this,
they go without precedent in antiquity. We offer up
our alms ; we offer up our prayers, our praifes, and
ourfelves. And all thefe we offer up in the virtue and
confideration of Chrift's facrifice, reprefented before us
by way of remembrance or commemoration ; nor can
it be proved, that the ancients did more than this : this
whole fervice was their chriflian facrifice, and this is
ours. But the Romanics have invented a new facri-
fice which Chrift never inftituted ; which the apoftles
never dreamt of; which the primitive chriflians would
have abhorred ; and which we, if we will be followers
of them, ought never to join in.
II. And this I now come in the fecond place to de-
clare to you.
For the under (landing this new myftery of the facri-
fice of the mafs, you are to know, in the firft place,
That it is the eftablifh'd doctrine of the church of
Rome, that in the facrament of the holy communion,
are contained truly, really, and fubftantially, not only
the true body and blood, but the foul and deity of our
Lord Jefus Chrift ; that is to fay, the whole Chrift ;
and whoever denies this, or affirms that Chrift is only
in the facrament, as in a fign or a figure ; that he is
there prefent only by his virtue and efficacy, he is, by
the council of Trent, pronounced accurfed. In what
manner they thus get Chrift into their hands, we know
not; but it is certain that the prieft, by faying five
K 2 words,
1.96 Concerning the facrifice of the Mafs.
words, always doth it; that is, of the bread and wine,
makes the very true Chrift 5 who being thus made by
the words of confecration, he is, by the prieft, offered
.up in facrifice to God ; and that in as true and proper a
fenfe as he was offered up upon the crofs at Jerufalem :
and this facrifice, thus ofFered by the prieft, hath the
fame virtue in it that Chrift's firft facrifice had; that is,
it is a propitiation for the fins of the world • it is an ex-
piatory facrifice both for the dead and for the living.
One would fcarce believe, that the church of Rome
(hould teach fuch doctrines as thefe, much lefs teach
them for articles of faith, and require the belief of
them by all her fubjecls, under pain of damnation : but
■vet this really they do, as appears by thefe two canons
which the council of Trent hath made about the mafs:
tc Whoever (hall fay, That in the mafs there is not
cc offered up unto God a true and proper facrifice, let
«« him be accurfed. And again : If any (hall fay, That
45 the facrifice of the mafs is only a facrifice of praife
6< and thankfgiving, or only a commemoration of the
iC facrifice performed on the crofs, and that it is not
' « propitiatory, or that it is only profitable to him that
iC takes it, and ought not to be offered for the living
. £i and the dead, for all manner of fins, punifhments,
<* fatisfaclions, and other necefHties, whoever affirms
" any of thefe things let him be accurfed." This is
the Romifli doctrine concerning the facrifice of the
mafs. But how groundlefs, how falfe, how abfurd,
nay how impious it is, I now come in the third place
to mew.
IIL 1. And firft of all let it be considered, there is
no foundation for any fuch facrifice as this of the pa-
pifts, either in the inftitution of the fupper by our
Lord, or by any other example or doctrine recorded in
fcripture,
Concerning the facrifice of the Mafs, 197"
fc'ripture. It is certain. That all that our Saviour was
pleafed to order in this matter, as far as the four evan-
gelifts can exprefs it, doth relate to quite another pur-
pofe, and concludes, that what he himfelf did, and
what he ordered us to do, was meant a facrament and
not a facrifice. He took bread and blejpd it. He gave
it to his difciples faying, do, this in re?nembrance of me.
Take, eat, this is my body, &c. That it ihauld be a
facrince wherein either he fhould offer up himfelf, or
command his church to offer him up to God his Father,,
it appears neither by any word, or any act. of his. For3
in the inftitution, both his words and actions are di-
rected immediately to his difciples. And fuch fpecial
addreffes to men, are no likely proof of a facrifice to
God.
But further ; did our Saviour at his fir ft facrament
really offer up himfelf, body, and blood, and life, a
true, proper facrince to God, or did he not? If he
did not, how (hall we dare to pretend to offer him up
in our facraments ? If he did, as the papiils fay he did,
to what purpofe did he afterwards offer himfelf up upon
the crofs ? As for the other writers of the New-tefta-
ment, though they have fometimes occafion to mention
the facrament of our Lord, yet not a fyllabie is to be
found in them from whence any one can conclude that
ever they dreamed it was a facrifice. They run in the
fame drain that our Lord doth, of taking, eating, ami
communicating in ChrijY s body and blood, and jhewing
forth his death : But not the leaf! intimation of our fa-
crifking Chrift to God. Nay, St. Paul's whole dif -
courfe to the Corinthians about eating of things offered
in facrifice to idols, which he declares to be unlawful
for any chriftian to do, telling the Corinthians that,
they cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the
K 3 table*
jgS Concerning the facrifice of the Mafs.
table of devils -, I fay, all that difcowfe is an effectual
confutation of the Romifh facrifice. For it plainly
ihews that in St. Paul's notion, the chriflian commu*
nion was not a facrifice, but a feaft upon a facrifice, as
the idolatrous feafts were.
One thing there is indeed in the fcripture, which the
papifts make a great noife with, for the proof of their
rnafs oblation. It is Melchizedeck's bringing forth
bread and wine when he met Abraham, after his expe-
dition againft the five kings. Melchizedeck, fay they,
was the prieft of the raoft high God, and all chriflian
priefts are after his order. Now his priefthood con-
fided in offering up bread and wine, and therefore theirs
muft do fo too. This is the fum of the argument. But
how little to the purpofe it is any one will eafily fee,
who confiders thefe three things :
(i) Firft, They can never prove that Mekhiz-e deck's
bringing forth bread and ivine, or as the Latin tranfla-
tion renders it, Offering bread and wine, was any aft
of his prieftly function. He brought out bread and
wine not to offer it up in facrifice to God, but to treat
and entertain Abraham and his followers, who were
wearied with their journey. It was an act of humanity
and hofpitality to thofe perfons, but not an acl: of devo-
tion to God.
(2) But Secondly, fuppofmg that Melchizedeck did,
as a prieft, bring forth this bread and wine, and offer-
ed it up in facrifice to God, yet what is this to the
chriflian minifters, unlefs it can be proved that they
fucceed him in his priefthood ; which can never be
done ? We read indeed, that Chrift was a priejl after
the order of Melchizedeck, but not a word that his mi-
nifters, to the end of the world, are fo. Nay, the
very fuppofition that Melchizedeck was a type of Chrifr,
and
Concerning the facrifice 0} the Mafs. 199
and of his priefthood, will effectually deftroy all pre-
tences to that priefthood, in the gofpel minifters.
(3) But Thirdly, fuppofing all the chriftian clergy,
are the fucceffors of Melchizedeck, (which it is cer-
tain none of them are,) yet how doth this impovver
them to offer up Chrift to his Father in the commu-
nion ? Melchizedeck only offered bread and wine ;
and if the Romifh priefts would do no more, we fhould
not have fo much to fay againft them. But they pre-
tend to offer up the very body and blood of Chrift,
which was certainly none of Melchizedeck's offering.
And therefore it is as certain that his action gave no
countenance to their prefent practices.
2. But Secondly, Let it be confidered that the Po-
pifh facrifice of Chrift in the mafs, hath not only no
ground or foundation in fcripture, but is as directly
contrary to it, as any thing in the world can be. They
pretend every day to offer up Chrift. The fcripture
flatly faith that Chrift was never to be offered up but
once 3 and the apoftie in the ninth chapter of the epiftle
to the Hebrews, mainly infifts upon this. And herein
he placeth the difference between the law and the gof-
pel, that the facrifices of the law being ifnperfecl, and
not able to put away fin, were every year to be repeated.
Heb. x. 1, 2. But Chrift, by once offering up himfelf,-
bath for ever perfected all thofe that are fantlified, ver.
14. And therefore, he faith, there is no need that he
Jhould offer himfelf often, as the high priejl enter eth in-
to the holy place every year with the blood of 'the facrifice 9
For then, fays he, Chrift muft have often fuffered fince
the foundation of the world : but now once in the end
of the world hath he appeared, to take away fins by
the facrifice of himfelf-y and as it is appointed unto men
K 4 ence
200 Concerning the facrifice of the Mafs.
once to die, and after that the judgment. So Chrift
was once~ offered to beer ike fins of many, and to them
that look for him fhall he appear the fecond time with-
out fin unto fa hat ion , Heb. ix. 25, 265 27.
Nothing in the world can be plainer than that, ac-
cording to St. Paul's (enfe, Chrift was never to be of-
fered but once. And yet the Popi(h priefts do offer
Mm a thoufand times every day in the year.
What now have they to fay for thernfeives, for thus
apparently contradicting the fcripture in their daily fer-
vice ? Why truly this is all. They confefs indeed that
Chrift was never offered more than once, under his
own form and figure, and that was upon the crofs,
when he fried his blood : hut that he may be for all
this, and is daily offered upon their altars, as really as
he was that once upon the crofs, under the form and
figure of bread, in the which he fheds no blood.
But what horrible muffling is this ? I will not men-
tion here the nonfenfe and the impiety they are guilty
of, in pretending to pen up the whole intire body and
blood of Chrift in one fmgle wafer ; nay, in every
crumb of that wafer, and expofing it to be devoured
by rats and mice, and every thing d(c that can eat
bread: this I mall have a further opportunity to talk
of. But what monftrous equivocations, by this diftinc-
tion of theirs, do they make the holy apoftle to ufe,
in what he difcourfes on this matter ? Such equivoca-
tions, as even ajefuit would be afhamed to betaken in.
He fays, downright, that Chrift was never to be offer-
ed but once. Ay, but fay they, his meaning is, that
Chrift was never to be offered but once in the fame
form and figure : in another form and figure the apoftle
allows that he is offered every day. If this be the apo-
ftle's meaning, is he not wonderfully fincere in his af-
firmations \
Concerning the facrifice of the Mafs, 20 1 "
formations ? Even juft as fincere as I mould be, If I
fhould make oath that I never faw fuch a perfon but
once in my life ; meaning, that I never faw him but
once in fuch a garb or habit ; but in other habits I
cannot deny but that I have ken him a thoufandi
times.
And then further : As to what they fay, that ChriftV
oblation upon the crofs was a bloody facrifice (and of
fuch the apoftle fpeaks) but that which they offer in'
the mafs, is a facrifice without blood ; it is as impudent-
a fhufBe as the other. For, with what face can any '
Romanift fav, That the facrifice of Chrift, which they.'
offer to God in the mafs-fervice, is a facrifice without
blood -, when if is the avowed doctrine of their church, !
that in every crumb of bread, after confecration, there-
is not only the whole body of Chrift, but alfo all his !
blood; and whoeyer denies it is, by a canon of the ■
council of Trent, pronounced accurfed ? Again : If:
their facrifice of the mafs be a bloodlefs one, with i
what confidence dare they affirm, that it is a facrifice -
propitiatory for the fins both of the dead and of the -liv- -
ing, when St. Paul, in exprefs words, hath told us, »
That without the /bedding of blood there is no remiffion ■
of 'fins , Heb. ix. 22. But I fiiall purfue this no fur-
ther.
3. In the third place, As this facrifice of the mafs ~
is- without fcripture, and againft fcripture, fo it is alfo •
in the reafon of the thing, highly injurous to our Lord :
Jefus, and to that facrifice which he once offered upon '
the crofs to his Father ; for it mightily leffens and de- -
predates the value of it ; it infinitely takes away from "
the worth and dignity of that everlafting facrifice that
it pretends to repeat or reiterate : for if that firft and r
eternal facrifice, which Chrift once offered upon tbe>
- & 5.= crofs3 *
202 Concerning the facrifice of the Mafs.
crofs, hath all that fufiiciency, and all that efficacy
which can be procured by a facrifice, nothing is left
that can be done by a fecond. And it is an idle thing
to fay, that the prieft offers every day a facrifice propi-
tiatory for the living and the dead, when all the pro-
pitiation was made by the firffc facrifice : fo that at this
rate, the mafs-fervice will be quite out of doors.
But if this fecond be needful, it muft be needful up-
on this account, that it fupplies fomething that was
wanting in the firft: In this point, one of the Fathers
is very full to our purpofe. JC To be offered (faith he)
46 is a conviction, againft the finner ; but to be offered
" more than once, is an evidence of weaknefs againft
'< the oblation itfelf." Either therefore there muft be
no fecond oblation of ChrifFs body and blood, or, if
there ought to be, that fecond will be a reproach to
the infinite value of the firft ^ for it is grounded upon:
this fuppofition, that Chrift's oblation upon the crofs
was fome way or other defective : the way that the
Romanics take off this argument, is this : They will-
grant, that ChrifFs one oblation upon the crofs was
all-fufficient for the procuring the pardon of the fins of
the whole world ; but they my, withal, this oblation
is to be every day repeated, in order to the applying,
to particular perfons the benefits that were at firft ob-
tained by it*
But how little to the purpofe is this ? The notion
of a propitiatory facrifice is, that it procures the par-
don of all fins to the offender. If therefore Chrift's
iirft facrifice did that, what need is there of another ?
If the debt be once paid, there is no juftice that it
fhould be exac"led again. According therefore to this
their doctrine, they fhould not have called the facrifice
of the mafs a propitiatory facrifice, but an applicator^
^ one*.
Concerning the facrijice of the Mafsi. 203
one. But then, for this virtue, that they affign to
this their facrifice, of applying to believers the benefits
of Chrift's firft facrifice, it is the ftrangeft one that
ever was heard of. The way that the fcripture propo-
feth to us to have the benefits of Chrift's paffion applied
to us, is, the performance of feveral conditions on our
parts ; that is to fay, repenting of our fins, and receiv-
ing the holy facrament, and living an honeft, godly,
and chriftian life. But was it ever heard, that the be-
nefit of a facrifice was to be applied to men by the
means of offering up another facrifice ? How can any
thing be applied to men, by being offered up and ap-
plied to God ? It is juft as if we mould apply the phy-
fic, or the falves that are prefcribed, not to the patient,
or the wounded perfon, but to the phyfician who pre-
fcribes them.
But there is a further myftery in this applicatory fa-
crifice than we would perhaps at firfb think of; and
which hath brought as much money into St. Peter's
treafury, as any one trick they have ever made ufe of.
The facrifice of the mafs, you fee, is for the applying
the merits of Chrift's firft facrifice to particular perfons.
Now this facrifice the clergy of Rome have wholly in
their own hands, and can either apply it to the benefit
of particular perfons,, or not apply it, as they pleafe ;
for if they do not intend to appiy it to this or the other
perfon, it is not applied y if they do intend to apply it,
then it is. The efficacy of any mafs, for the pardon of
the peoples fins, depends upon the intention of the
prieft. I {hall give you the words of one of their own
authors : « It belongs not, faith he, to God alone,
*c but alfo to the prieft, to diftribute the benefit gottea
" by the facrifice y beeaufe, as it is in his power to
" determine his intention^ whether he will offer foe
tt th\
tins
204 Concerning the facrifice of the Mafs.
<c this or that man ; fo it belongs to him to determine
** to whom he will communicate what is gotten by
*' virtue of that facrifice." Thomas Aquinas exprefteth
it in fewer words : " The mafs is beneficial to them
" to whom the prieft hath an intention to apply it."
This now, being the cafe, it may eafily be fuppofed
liow convenient it is, for the getting the prieft's good
intentions, to apply the benefit of the facrifice that is
offered to us, to make good applications to him before-
hand.
4. But fourthly and laftly, The facrifice of Chrift,
as it is pretended daily to be ofFered up in the mafs-
fervice, is not only injurious to Chrift's one facrifice,
but alfo barbarous and inhuman. For, in this facri-
fice, the prieft pretends every day to offer up our Sa-
viour to God his Father, as really as he offered up him-
felf upon the crofs. He pretends alfo not to offer him
up only as a father may offer up his fon, or a mafter
his fervant 5 but to facrifice alfo as an heathen prieft
doth when he facrificeth a bull or a flieep. For this
purpofe, he pretends, by the words of confecration
(which are but five) to bring down Chrift's body, and
foul, and deity, and all from the right hand of God in
heaven ; and to coop them up in the narrow quantity
of a wafer and a little wine, where he is forced to lodge
fo long as that wafer is in being, and cannot in the
leaft help himfelf, or get out of it. To compleat this
facrifice, the prieft muft eat him, or rather fwallow
him down ; for fear that, if he chewed him, fome
crumbs might remain behind, and fo the whole body
be left in his mouth. This done, both the prieft and
the people muft move God to blefs them in conftde-
ration of this facrifice, in which they have fo kindly
and worthily treated his oy/n Son : and then, ■ laftly,
both
Concerning the facrifice of the Mafs. 205
both prieft and people do adore what they have thus
facrificed.
This is a very plain, but true account of the facri-
fice of the mafs -, whether our Lord be civilly, or
kindly, or humanely ufed herein, I will leave any one
to judge. .
Thefe things, I dare fay, which I have reprefented.
concerning the popifh facrifice, have force enough to
convince any unprejudiced perfon, that it is not a fer-
vice inftituted by Chrift ; but that it is a great cor-
ruption, and abufe, and depravation of chriftianity ;
which was the thing I was obliged to make out. ;
The fourth abufe which the papifts have introduced
into the facrament is, their doctrine of tranfubftantia-
tion : but the treating of fchis I referve to the next
opportunity.
S E R.
SE
ON XII
Concerning Tranfubftantiation.
The third fermon on the fame text.
i Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25.
For I have received op the Lord that which I
alp) delivered to you, that the Lord Jepus, the
fame night in which he was betray' 'd, took
bread :
And when he had given thanks , he brake it, and
faid, take, eat : this is my body, which is broken
for you : this do in remembrance of me.
After the fame manner alfo he took the cup> when
he had pupped. Paying, This cup is the new-
t eft anient in my blood : This do yey as opt as yt
drink it, in remembrance op me.
^Ml^l H E defign I am upon is, to (hew the
grievous corruptions and abufes that the
church of Rome is guilty of in the mat-
ter of the holy communion : three of
them 1 have already fpoke to > a fourth we now come
to, and that is this : That whereas in this facrament,
according to our Saviour's inftitution* there is a ma-
terial
Concerning Tranfubftanti-ation. 207
terial part, and a fpiritual ; a fign, and the thing fig-
nify'd ; the bread and wine to be received for our bo-
dily fuftenance, and the body and blood of Chrift,
fignified by them, to be received for the food of our
fouls ; they have quite taken away the former from
us : for they teach, that immediately, upon favino-
the words of confecration, that which was bread and
wine before, and which, according to the nature of
a facrament, now comes to be received by us, is no
longer bread and wine, but is turned into the very bo-
dy and blood of Chrift.
And this is that myflery which they call tranfub-
ftantiatfon ; a myflery as unintelligible as the word
by which they exprefs it ; a myflery that has always been
a bone of contention among themfeives, whenever they
came to a particular explication of it ; and a myflery
which will for ever be a wall of feparation between
them and the reft of mankind, that will not renounce
their fenfe and reafon.
If we were agreed with the church cf Rome in all
other points whatfoever, yet fo long as they impofed
upon us the belief of this fingle doctrine of tranfuh-
ftantiation as an article of faith, or a condition of
their communion, yet we muft not, we cannot ever,
upon thefe terms, come over to them.
What the Romifh doctrine of tranfubftantiation is,,
you will eafily difcern by thefe three or four canons,
which I fhall tranflate word for word, out of the
council of Trent, which is their oracle of religion.
" If any one fhall deny, that in the facrament of the
" eucharift there is contained truly, really, and fub-
" ftantially, the body and blood, together with ther
" foul and divinity of our Lord Jefus Chrift, &6 let
« him be accurfed. SefL 13. Can. n
20 8 Concerning Tranfuhftantiation.
" If any one mall fay, that in the facrament there
" doth remain the fubftance of bread and wine, to-
<c gether- with the body and blood of Chrifb, and
C£ fliall deny the converfion of the whole fubftance of
" the bread into the body, and of the whole fub-
" ftance of the wine into the blood [of Chrift] the
"fpecies or accidents only of the bread and wine re-
" maining, which converfion or change the catholic
" church doth moil aptly call by the name of tran-
" fubftantiation, let him be accurfed. Can. 2.
"If any fhall deny, that in the facrament the
cc whole Chrift is contained in either kind, nay, and
" in every part of either kind, when one part is fe-
" parated from another, let him be accurfed, Can 3.
"If any one fhall fay, that in the facrament, after
"'•the words of confecration are faid, there is not the
" body and blood of Chrift, fave only in the prefent"
" ufe of them while they are taken and received,
" but that they are not there, either before or after;
" or that the true body of Ghrift doth not remain in
" the confecrated wafers that are left, or that are -
" referved after the communion, let him be accurfed."
Can. 4.
In thefe four canons the following points are plain-
ly contained, which will give us a full account of their -
doctrine of tranfubltantiatiOn.
Firft, That after the words of confecration are
fpoken, there is no bread nor no wine left upon the -
table.
Secondly, That though there be no bread or wine,
yet the accidents, that is, the colour, the {hape, the
bignefs, the weight, the tafte, and the other qualities
of the bread and wine do remain. But neither in the
bread, nor in the body of Chrift, but by themfelves.
1 Not
Concerning Tranfubftantiation, 209-
Not in the bread, for bread there is none. Not in
the body of Chrift, for they will not allow you to fay,
that the body of Chrift is round, or fweet, or white,
or the like. So that here is roundnefs without any-
thing being round, whitenefs without any thing being
white, fweetnefs without anv thing being fweet.
Thirdly^ That in the place of the fubftance of
bread and wine, by the virtue of five words, there is
the fubftance of the body and blood of Chrift, toge-
ther with his foul and divinity ; though it is confefs'd
at the fame time, that Chrift hath but one body, and
that body is in heaven.
Fourthly, That this body and blood, as it is whole
in the whole bread and wine, and as both body and
blood are whole in the bread alone, fo it is whole alfo
\ in every crumb of that bread ; which doth admirably
coniift with the notion of a body.
Fifthly, The body of Chrift is eaten by every com-
municant both good and bad.
Sixthly, Not only fo, but this body remains in
thofe wafers that are not eaten ; fo that if, after the
facrament, a moufe ihould happen to come at one of
thefe wafers and devour it, it would as really eat the
body of Chrift as any chriftian. And if one of thefe
wafers fhould be burnt with fire, why then the body
of Chrift would be as really burnt, as it was before
eaten. Thefe things cannot be prevented, but by.
as great a miracle, as the firft production of the body
was.
Seventhly, and laftly, This change, this converfion
of the whole fubftance of bread and wine into the
whole fubftance of the body and blood of Chrift, to-
gether with his foul and divinity, is moft aptly by the
catholic church called tranfubftantiation.
%
2 1 0 Concerning Vranfubftantiation.
By this account 1 have given you, you may in
fome meafure difcover what that hard word means,
and what the doctrine of the church of Rome is in
this matter.
My bufinefs now fhould be to fhew the abfurdity
of this doctrine. But I dare fay, the very fhewing
you what it is, and the naming to you the feveral pro-
pofitions contained in it, will be fufficient to keep
every unbiafs'd perfon from eafify giving his affent to
it. He muft be of a very ftrong conflitution, that
can fwallow down and digeft fuch pills as are here
offered to him, unlefs education, or intereft, or a
blind fubmiilion to others, have already made them
familiar to him. I dare be bold to fay, there never
was any myflery in any religion in the world, fo un-
intelligible, fo unconceivable, fo contradictious, fo
every way both againft fenfe and reafon, as this is.
No Jew, no Turk, no Pagan, fo far as we can learn
from hiftory, ever had in their creeds an article fo
hard to be believed.
If this had been the doctrine of our blefTed Lord
and his apoftles, fure he had never drawn the world
over to his religion : But even his own difciples would
have done, as they of Carpernaum did, when they
took his faying (John vi.) about eating his flejh and
drinking his blood in a literal fenfe; (juft as the Ro-
manics now do) they would have departed from him.
I fay not this to put any affront either on the per-
fons, or the parts, or the honefty of thofe that are o-
therwife perfuaded, and do believe as the Roman
church teach eth ; for I know very well how far edu-
cation and prejudice, and want of confideration, may
prevail, even upon good men, for the perverting their
judgments in the plainer! matters 3 efpecially when
thefe
Concerning tfranfubftantiation. 2 r i
thefe are backed with this fatal principle, that they
are bound, under pain of damnation, to believe as the
church believes ; and that the more difficult the thing
is to be believ'd, the more meritorious is their faith :
I fay, I have nothing to fay to the men who do be-
lieve tranfubftantiation, nor do I call their chriftianity
into queftion upon that account ; but, for the thing
itfelf, it is fit, it is juft, we mould freely reprove it.
For certainly, there is no doctrine in the world that
either more deferves to be, or is more capable of be-
ing expofed, and made ridiculous, than this is ; and it
hath already been fufficiently made fo by as many as
have attempted it.
If we mould purfue thofe feveral propofitions I have
named to their feveral confequences, what a bundle
of monftrous abfurdities, and grofs contradictions,
fhould we find in them ! But this method of arguing
agamft tranfubftantiation, I do not think fo proper in
this place, becaufe it would engage us in a difcourfe
too fubtle for ordinary capacities ; and I would, if I
could, fpeak to the meaneft underftandings.
Letting pafs therefore the abfurdities and contradic-
tions which follow upon this doctrine of tranfubftan-
tiation, and which the Romanifts themfelves will not
pretend to anfwer, all of them, I will endeavour thefe
three things :
Firft, To mew that the doctrine of tranfubftantia-
tion is fo far from having any countenance from
fcripture, particularly from the words of Chrift in the
inftitution [This is my body] which is the great argu-
ment the Romanifts bring for it, and the foundation
upon which they build it ; that, if there were no o-
ther argument againft it but that, it would from hence
be effectually overthrown,
Secondly*
2 1 2 Concerning Xranjuhftantiation.
Secondly, To fhew the clanger of this artifice*
forafmuch as it overthrows the evidence of the whole
christian religion. If the doctrine of tranfubftantia-
tion be true, it can never be proved that chriftianity j
is true.
Thirdly, I {hall endeavour to fhew the infufHciency
of that plea or apology, which the R-omanists ufually
make for their docVme of trantubftantiation, that is,
the unaccountablenefs and unconceivablenefs of fevda
ral other of the gospel-doctrines ; from whence they
conclude, that we ought not to reject the doctrine of
tranfubftantiation upon this account, that it is hard ofl
unintelligible, or feeiningly contradictious.
Cf thefe three points in their order ; and the firft
of them will, I believe, take up my whole time at
prefent.
The great, if not the only argument of the Ro-
manises for tranfubftantiation is, our Saviour's words,
when he militated the facrament ; which they think
to be fo full and flat for the converiion of bread and'
wine into the body and blood of Chrifr, that they
winder with what face any protectant can deny it.
Doth not our Saviour moil: exprefly fay, when he
gave the facrament under the form of bread, Take^ eat9
this is my body f Doth he not likewife fay of the cup,
that it is his blood? If ever it was needful that our Sa-'
viour mould fpeak plain, and without a figure, one. ,
would think it mould be then, when he instituted this
fo folernn, and perpetual, and principal a facrament
of the christian church. And what can be more plain,
than what he hath fpoken concerning it ? Shall we
therefore believe Jefus Christ, or mail we believe our
own carnal reafon againft him ? No fure. Every
christian ou°;ht to fubmit his reafon to Christ's revela-r
tion s
Concerning Tranfubjlantialion. 2 1 g
tion 5 for his reafon is infinitely fallible ; but Chrift
can neither deceive, nor be deceived. To the word,
therefore, and to the teftimony, which is your own
proteftant rule. Chrift hath faid of the bread, This
is my body : and therefore certainly it is fo, whatever
our fenfes or our reafon can fuggeft to the belief of
the contrary.
This is the argument ; and thus far indeed it pro-
ceeds right, That whatever Chrift faid we are to be-
lieve, and likewife that Chrift did fpeak fuiEciently-
plain to his difciples, when he inftituted this holy fa-
crament : Neither of thefe will- any proteftant deny.
And therefore we do as firmly believe, as we believe
• any thing, that, when Chrift fpake thofe words, This
is my body, he fpake nothing but what was both true,
I and very plain and obvious unto thofe to whom he
fpake : But the queftion is, whether thefe words of
' liis, even in their moft plain and obvious fenfe, do
: make any thing for the Romifh dodtrine of tranfub-
;: ftantiation ? They fay they do ; we fay they do not :
Here therefore we are to join iiTue.
And here we are ready to prove (if that will fa-
tisfy) that they not only make nothing for tranfub-
ftantiation, but quite overthrow it; that the fenfe
that the proteftants expound them in, is far the plaineft
I and eafieft, and moft natural and proper; nay, that
. it is impoffible they mould be expounded to any other
fenfe. On the contrary, that the Romifh fenfe is
harm and forced, and makes our Saviour to talk a-
gainft all the rules of fpeech.
For the finding out the meaning of our Saviour's
proportion, This is my body, the true way will be firft
to fix the fenfe of the two terms of it ; that is to fay,
what he means when he fays This, and what he means
by
214 Concerning Tranfubftantiaiion.
by his body. Now of the fenfe of thefe two terms,
we may be as fully afcertained from what goes before,
and from what follows after, as we can be of the fenfe
of any words in fcripture.
When we ufe the word this in any fpeech of ours,
all the world knows that we do, as with the finger,
point to fomething that is prefent, which we would
have thofe we fpeak to take notice of. If I have a
Bible in my hand, and hold it forth to you, and fay,
This is the word of God, would you not all think that
I fpoke of the book which I had in my hand, and
{hewed you ? Certainly you would. When our Sa-
viour therefore faid to his difciples, This is my body,
he meant to {hew fomething to them that was prefent ;
and accordingly we find, that fomething he had in
his hand, and that was bread. The Lord Jefus, as;
my text tells you, after /upper took bread: He hlejfed
this bread ; he breaks this bread after he had bleffed it ;
he gives this bread to his difciples after he had broken
it ; he bids them take and eat of this bread -, and, to
oblige them fo to do, he adds, for this is my body.
What now, according to the common language of
mankind, is it that our Saviour faith is his body ?
Muft it not of neceffity be that which he had in his
hand, and which he had bleffed, and broken, and bid
them eat of? If any thing can be concluded from
words, it muft be concluded, that when our Saviour
faith, This is my body, he fpeaks of the bread he had
bleffed and broken ; and it is impoffible the apoftles
fhould underftand him otherwife.
But if this be not fufficient to prove that our Sa-
viour, when he faid, This is ?ny body, fpoke of the
confeGrated bread; let us add the teftimony 6f St.
Paul, who, fure, is an infallible interpreter of our
Saviour's
Concerning Tranfuhftantiation. 215
Saviour's words. Our Saviour tells his difciples, that
what he had commanded them to eat was his body :
This is agreed on all hands. If now we will enquire
of St. Paul, what it is that is eaten in the holy fupper,
he will inform us plainly, that it is bread : Three
times he tells us fo in the verfes immediately follow-
ing my text. As often, fays he, as ye eat this breads
and drink this cup, ver. 26. JVliofoever fhail eat this
bread and drink this cup unzuorthily, ver. 27. Let a man
examine himfelf, andfo let him eat this bread and drink
this cup, ver. 28.
Here now is the argument. Our Saviour having
confecrated the bread, bids his difciples eat of it, tell-
ing them, it was his body. St. Paul faith, that what
is eaten in the facrament is bread. From hence there-
fore it undeniably follows, that the confecrated bread
is that which our Saviour calls his body 5 and that,
when he faith, This is my body, it is as much as if he
had faid, This bread vjhich I have blejfed and broken^
and which I give you ; this bread is my body.
Having now fixed this as a firm undeniable princi-
ple that we may fafely build upon, let us proceed to
the other term in our Saviour's proportion, my body.
Now in what fenfe, or under what confideration the
word body is here to be taken, is as clear from our
Saviour's words, as the former thing we were fpeak-
ing of. The Romanifb do indeed darken the fenfe
of this proportion, by leaving out half of it; they
only fay. This is my body. Here they break of. But
the intire fentence is this : This is my body given for
you, or, this is my body broken for you, From hence
we may plainly gather, that our Saviour doth not
fpeak of his body abfolutely, and without a qualifica-
tion, but under this particular confideration, His body
as
2it£ Concerning Tranfuhjiantiation.
^s given for us\ that is as offered up to God in
facrifice for us (as the fcriptures often explain that
term) his body broken for us -3 that is, deprived of life
for our fakes.
My plain meaning is, that Chrifl: never faid fimply
of the bread, this is my body., but, this is my body
given, or broken for you : that is, he hath- plainly de-
clared, that the bread of the communion is his body,
not living, but dead in our ftead. Which is further
confirmed. by what Chrifl: faith of the cup, that it is
the blood of the new. covenant Jhed for them. It was
not in any other fenfe his blood, than as it was Jhed
for the remijjion of fins. ■■'..■■ ' '
: Taking now thefe two things to be fufficiently
proved, and never to be called in queftion again, I
come to the main queftion between us and the pa-;
pifts -, and that is, in what fenfe thefe two terms we
have been explaining, are coupled together ; or, to
fpeak plainer, in what fenfe our Saviour faid of the
cohfecrated bread j that it was his dead body. Here
•begins the great quarrel between them and us ; they
contend for a direct literal fenfe ; we fay our Saviour 1
here fpeaks by a figure ; but yet fuch a figure as is
moft common, and which every one, upon the pro-,
nouncing of the words, would eafily underftand. They
underftand our Saviour in the fame fenfe as they
would do one, who (for inftance) fhould point to
the king's perfon, and fay, This is the king. We
underftand our Saviour in the fame {enic as we
fhould do one who, having the king's picture in his
hand, mould fay, This is the king. The propofition V
-is the fame in the mouths of both thofe perfons ; but
•yet we' fee it hath a quite different figniiication as it
h fpoken by the one, and as it is fpoken by the other
Whe-
Concerning Tranfubjlantiation. 2 1 7
"Whether of thefe fenfes come nearer to truth, and
to our Saviour's meaning, the literal, or the figurative,
theirs, or ours, we are now to examine: But we
-are to examine them by thefe two principles which
"we have already proved, and now take for granted ;
and which,' I defire you would keep in memory,
viz. That when our Saviour faid, This is my body9
he fpoke of the bread $ and when he faid, that the
bread was his body, he fpoke of his body not living,
but facrifieed for our redemption.
Now, taking thefe things along with us, the two
following confequences will be evident :
Firil of all, that their fenfe of the words, and by
which alone they can prove tranfubftantiation, is im-
poflible, and full of nonfenfe and contradictions.
And fecondly, that the fenfe in which the protef-
'tants underfland our Saviour's words, is very natural*
-and eafy, and agreeable to the common way of fpeak-
ing; and the only fenfe in which it was poffible for
the apoftles, to whom our Lord fpoke,. to underfland
them.
1. Firft of all, the popifh glofs upon thefe word%
fuppofes things impoflible and contradiclious. For
•firft,
(1.) If we take our Saviour's words in the literal
fenfe, that is, in the fenfe of the Romanifts, we muft
make him fpeak to this effecl: : This bread which lhavi
blejfed and broken, and commanded you to eat of, is not
bread, but really and truly my dead body \ my body facri~
feed for you. Now I will appeal to you, whether
this be not perfect nonfenfe ; and whether it was not
impoflible that the difciples, to whom he fpoke mould
thus underfland him. For what is this, but to make
our Saviour fay and unfay the fame thing at the fame
Vol> VII. L time?
2-i 8 Concerning Tranfuhjlantiaticn.
time ? He fpeaks of the bread which he had blefTed
ajid broken, when he pronounced the word this, and
they all knew it to be bread ; and yet, according to
the Romanifts, he muft be fuppofed to mean that it
was not bread, but merely his body ; for, they fay,
when once it becomes the body of Chrift, it is no
longer bread.
There is nothing in the world, by which they can
fliift off this contradiction, but by faying thus (as in-
deed they do fay it) that when our Saviour fpoke the
word fhis? that which he had in his hands, or then
gave unto them to eat, was indeed bread; but, by
that time he had finimed his fentence, then it was no
longer bread, but his very body.
But this will ftand them in no ftead at all. For
tho' hereby they may avoid t]ie contradiction, yet
they make our Saviour to fpeak not only againft the
rules of all grammar, but to fpeak a flat untruth.
For he fays, in the prefent tenfe, this bread is my
body, when yet, when he begun to fpeak fo, the bread
was not his body, but only was prefently to be turned
into his body. If indeed he had faid this bread will
be my body, as foon as I have done fpeaking thefe
words, he then might have been fuppofed to have
fpoken fomething to the purpofe of tranfubftantiation.
But he fpeaks in the prefent time this is, not, ibis
will.be; and if they will be bold to change the tenfes,
then they keep not to the letter of the words, but have
recourfe to a figure : and a figure far more unufual in
thefe kind of fpeeches, than that we contend is here
made ufe of. When therefore our Saviour fays this
is my body, his proportion cannot pofiibly be taken,,
in a literal fenfe, without making him either to fpeak
a contradiction, or to fpeak that which is falfe. Un-
Concerning Tranfubftantiation. 2 1 9
lefs it can be made to appear that bread and our Sa-
viour's body, are one and the fame thing, which no
man in the world ever yet aflerted.
(2.) But fecondly, let us fuppofe, if we can, as
they would have us, that when Chrift had faid thefe
words, this is my body, that which he had in his hands
was no longer bread, but became his very body ; yet
there is this quefKon (till behind, how could it be
his dead body ? His body given, or broken, or facri-
ficed, for them ?
That our Saviour fpoke of his body in that condi-
tion, and under that confideration only, I have al-
ready fhewed ; and that his difciples underftood him
fo, there is no doubt. But if they did, how is it pof-
flible they fhould underftand his words in a. literal
fenfe ?
Chrift faid to them, this is my body. Not my body liv-
ing,but my body dead and broken for you. His difciples,
who heard thefe words, few and knew that the per-
fon who fpoke them was alive, that his body was not
yet broken, nor his blood fhed. What fhall we fay ?
Muft they underftand his words literally, as the pa-
pifts would have them underftood, or no? If they
did, they muft admit of as grofs a contradiction as ever
was put upon mankind. They muft believe that
Chrift's body was both alive, and dead at the fame
time. If they could not believe this, as certainly one
of us would think they could not, then it is impofiible
they fhould take our Saviour's words in a literal fenfe
viz. that the bread he gave them was really and truly,
and without any figure, his very dead body.
If they did not take them in a literal knk, then it is
certain they underftood them, in a figurative, which is
that which we proteftants contend for. Which figu-
k 2 rative
2 20 Concerning Franfuhftantiation.
rative fenfe, how natural, how eafy, how unexcep*
tionable it is, and how impoflible it is that the apoftles
Ihould mifs of it, 1 come in the next place to fhew.
2. Our Saviour in his lafl /upper with his apoftles
takes bread, and bleffeth it, and breaketh it, and diftri-
butes it to his feveral difciples, and bids them eat it,
telling them it zvas his body, his body broken- for them :
when yet all thofe difciples knew, and fawthathe was
alive j and prefent with them when he fpoke thofe words ?
If now we had been in their places, how ihould we have
tinderftood thofe words } Certainly not in a literal, but a
figurative fenfe. And what figure mould we have thought
•of befides that way of fpeaking whereby we give to the
fign the thing fignified by the fign. Now, according to
this figure, we ihould have underftood the words to
this effect, that this bread which he had broken, and
, blefled, did ihew forth and reprefent his body broken
for us, and by our eating of this broken bread, accord-
ing to his command, we were made partakers of the
benefits of his facrificed body. No fenfe in the world can
be more eafy than this. Nay, all things confidered, it is
impoilible, fuppofing the apoftles to have but common
fenfe and underftanding, and to mind what they
were about, that they ihould take the words in any
other.
(i.) For firft of all, there is no figure in fpeech
more ufual among mankind in all languages than this
whereby we give to the fign the name of the thing
fignified. Is there any phrafe more common jthan
when we {hew a picture of any one, to fay, this is
fuch a perfon : Or when we have a map before us,
to fay this is fuch, or fuch a country. When thefe
exprefllons are ufed, there is none fo filly as to be-
lieve that we mean that piece of painting is really the
perfon
Concerning Tranfubftantiation* 2 zi
perfon of the king, for inftance, or the queen, whom
it reprefents ; or that map is really the country of
France or Spain, or the like. But we all, even the
moft fimple of us do underftand that we give the name
of the perfon or thing reprefented, to that which re-
prefents it.
(2.) But fecondiy, as this is an ordinarary figure
in common fpeech, fo it is alio in the language of
fcripture. Innumerable are the pafTages that I might
quote both out of the Old and New-teft ament, to fhew
that the fign or figure of a thing is called by the name
of the thing itfelf. Thus for inftance, when Jofeph
expounded Pharoah'"s dream, The /even fat kine, fays he?
tire feven years. The feven ears of corn are feven years ,
Gen.xli.26. Thus when Daniel unfolded to Nebu-
chadnezzar his dreams of the great image, and of the
tree : Thou art this head of geld ', fays he, and the tree
which thou fawejl, it is thou 0 king, Dan. ii. 38. chap»
iv. ver. 20, 22.
Thus aifo, in the New-tefhment, our Saviour never
fails thus toexprefs himfelf upon the like occafions, as
in the parable of the tares. The field, faith he. Matt,
xiii. 38, 39. is the iv or Id: The good feed are the chil-
dren of the kingdom : The tares are the children of the
wicked one. The enemy that foweth them is the devil: The
harvejl is the end of the world : and the reapers are the
angels % And thus when he fpeaks of himfelf: I am the
door, I am the vine, I am the good fhepherd, John x. ,7,
xv. 1. x. 14. And thus alfo St. Paul: That rock
%vas Chrift, 1 Cor. x. 4.
By thefe, and a great many other inftances that
might be given, you may be convinced, that when the
holy fcriptures would exprefs the reprefentation of one:
thing by another^ they do not do it in fuch terms as-
L 3^ thefe,-.
^% Concerning Tranfulftaniiation.
thefe, fitch a thing is the fign, or the figure, or the
reprefentation of fuch a thing, which is the literal way
of expreiTing ; but in a much fhorter manner ; fuch a
thing is fuch a thing, giving to the fign or the figure
the name of the thing which it reprefents or fignifies.
And why, when our Saviour faith, this is my bcdy^
he mould not be thought to ufe the fame ftyle and ex-
preflien (efpecially when all other fenfes of the phrafe
are, as I have fhewn, full of abfurdities and contra-
dictions) there is no imaginable reafon to be given.
(3,) But thirdly, that he muft be fuppofed to fpeak
in this language, and that his difciples fo underftood
him, there is this further argument, becaufe this was
the language that was ufed by the Jews in their facra-
ments, and particularly in that facrament that the apo-
ftles had juil then celebrated.
And indeed, great reafon there was that they fhould
fpeak in this ftile 5 for if the figns may be well called
by the name of the things they fignify (as we have
fhewn they often are) then much more may thofe fa-
cred ceremonies, which we term facraments, be fo
called ; for thefe are more than bare empty figns,
they are feals too ; they afTure to the worthy partakers
the truth and reality of thofe things they reprefent ;
they effectually communicate the things themfelves.
Two eminent facraments God appointed to the
Jews, circumcifion and the pafibver ; yet to both
thefe the holy fcriptures, and the Jews from them,
gave the name of the thing which they fignified and
fealed. Circumcifion, which was no more than the
fign and feal of God's covenant with the Jews, an-
fwering to our baptifm, yet is in fcripture called the
covenant itfelf. Thus twice in one chapter, Gen.
xvii. 10. 13. God faith, this is my covenant, every
male
Concerning Tranfuhftantiation. 223
male child among you Jhall be circumcifed. And again,
My covenant Jhall be in your flejh. Whereas every
body knows, that circumcifion was not God's cove-
nant, but the iign of the covenant, or the facrament
whereby they entered into covenant.
And then for the other facrament, the pafchal-feaft,
from whence our Saviour took his facrament of the
Lord's fupper, the very name of paffover, by which
it is called, is an inftance of the figure we are con-
tending for. For the facrificed lamb, with which the
Jews celebrated this facrament, was not the paffover
itfelf, but only a fign, or memorial of it ; for the paff-
over was God's actual paffing over the Ifraelites when
he flew the Egyptian firft-born, which was done when
they came out of Egypt ; yet, you fee, God him-
felf calls this feaft, The Lord's paffover. This is, fays
he, the Lord's paffover, Exod. xii. 11. And for ever
after, every year, this pafchal feaft was kept (which
was as long as the Jewifh polity lafted) when the- lamb
was fet upon the table, the m after of the houfe fpoke
to his company in thefe words : This is the paffover,
which we therefore eat, becaufe God paffed by cur boufes
in Egypt. And this form of words, without doubt,
our Saviour ufed when he kept this feaft with his dif-
ciples.
But now all that were prefent, knew that the Iamb
upon the table was not really the Lord's paffover, for
that was a deliverance that God wrought for them but
once, and that many hundreds of years before ; but
only a memorial of that paffover ; a facrament infti-
tuted for the commemoration of that deliverance, or
that paflbver.
Taking now this for granted, as we have fufficient
reafon, fince God, in fcripture, firft ufed the expref-
L 4 fionj
224 Concerning Tranfubftantiation.
fion, ; and the Jewifh rituals tell us, that in all fucceed-
ing paflovers it was continued, who can doubt but the
apoftiesr when they heard our Saviour fay of the bread,
this is my body, would naturally be led to underftand the
words in the fenfe we have been declaring, tho' there
was nothing to induce them to it, but what we have
juft now find. The apoftles, at that time, were cele-
brating the Jewifh facrament of the pafchal-feair,
which was a commemoration of a deliverance paft,
*uiz. That great redemption which God had wrought
for them from the Egyptian bondage ; yet they heard
our Saviour fay of the bread, this is the bread of afflic-
tion tvhich your fathers eat in Egypt. They heard him
fay of the flefo. upon the table, this is the Lord's paff
cver. Well, after they had rimmed this facrament,
they faw our Saviour take of the fame bread again,
and blefs it as he had done before j (but with a defign.
to make a new facrament, wherein both they, and
all chrlftians after them, fhouid commemorate the
death and facrifice of the pafcal lamb, of which the
other was a type ; by which facrifice, a deliverance was
wrought for all true Ifraeiites, to the world's end,
out of the fpiritual bondage of fin and fatan.) Hav-
ing, I fay, thus blejfed the bread? he bids them eat of
it ; and tells them, this is his body broken for them. I
dare now appeal to any, whether they would not na-
turally underftand this latter expreiiion of his in the
fame fenfe that they did the former ; that fs to fay,
that the bread that Chrift now blefTed, and broke, was
juft as much his body broken, as the bread they had
before eaten was the bread of affliction which their
fathers eat in Egypt ; or, as the lamb they had before
eaten of, was the Lord's paiTover. It has this only
difference^ that the pafcal lamb was a commemora-
tion
Concerning tfranfubftantiation. 22$;
tion of a thing paft, but the new facrament was a com-
memoration of fomething that was yet to come ; for -
Chrift had not then actually broken his body, or med :
•his blood, but was fuddenly fo to do : this excepted,,
the other things are the fame. And we may as well
imagine, that when thofe words of the Jewifh ritual, -
this is the Lord's pajfover, were fpoken, the difciples
underftood, that juft then the destroying angel was-
palling over the houfes of the Ifraelites, and flaying the
firft-born of the Egyptians; as we can imagine, that
when our Saviour faid, this is my body broken for you %
they underftood him of his real natural body, which
was not then crucified :: And confequently therefore
they took not his expreflion literally (as the papifts do)
but in the fame figure that was fo ufual among them,
I think now that I have fully made out, that Chrift's.
words in the inftitution, this is my body^ are fo far from s
making any thing for the doctrine of tranfubftantia- ■
tion, that they do effectually overthrow it ; and that
it is impoflible that the apoftles fhould under ftand them
in any other fenfe than we protectants now underftand 1
them.
I am fenfible I have been very tedious in this bufi-
nefs ; but my endeavours to fpeak plainly and convinc-
ingly have made me fo — All that 1 have further to add
is this, that altho' we thus interpret our Saviour's
words, and tho' thus, without doubt, they who heard
him fpeak did underftand them ; yet are we far from;
believing or imagining that the bread and wine in the ;
facrament are only empty figns, or figures, or repre-
fentattons of GhrhTs body and blood. On the con-
trary, . we believe, that altho' they do not change their,
natures, but ftill continue bread and wine, yet they,
do really and effectually convey, to. all worthy re-
k S ceiyer%.
226 Concerning tfranfubftantiation.
ceivers, all the benefits and virtues of ChrifVs body
that was broken, and of his blood that was med.
Tho' his body be in heaven, and not here, yet he is, i
by his Spirit, really prefent in and with all thofe who
do worthily partake of his facrament, in order to the
lengthening and refrefhing their fouls by his influ-
ence, as our bodies are ftrengthened and refrefhed by
the bread and wine. And this is all that we mean by
the real prefence in the facrament.
S£L
SERMON XIII
©
The ufual plea or apology for tranfubftan—
tiation, anfwered.
The fourth Sermon on the fame text;.
i Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25:
JF^r / £#?;£ received of the Lord that which Ialfot
delivered to you, that the Lord Jefus, the fame-
night in which he was betrayed, .took bread :
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, andfaid, .
take, eat : this is my body, which is broken for you : :
this do in remembrance of me.
After the fame manner alfo he took the cup, when he •
bad flipped^ frying ; this cup is the new tefiameni ■
in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in. re- ■
membrance of me* .
|MW£j|f O U may eafily remember the argument
^¥yf!ffb I am uPonS it is the fhewing (amongft
0^§\ isdH °ther errors of the church of Ronie>. in. the
matter of the holy communion) the great
abufe they have put upon us by their doctrine of tran-
fubftantiation. This docmne, . the laft time3 J largely
explained to you from the council of Trent 5 and gave
2 2 8 The ufual flea or apology for
an account, briefly, of the feveral abfurdities and con-
tradictions it contained in it. Having done this, the
method that I pitched upon, for mewing the ground-
lefsnefs of the Romifh doctrine of the converfion of
the bread and wine of the facrament into the very body
and blood of Chrift, was as follows : c To mew that
* this doctrine of tranfubftantiation is fo far from hav-
* ing any countenance from the words of our Saviour's
* inftitution, that if there was no other argument
* againft it but thofe words, it would, from thence,
* be effectually overthrown.'
And here it was my bufinefs to enquire into the
fenfe of our Saviour's words, this is my body. And
two things I undertook to prove :
Firft, that the Romanifts, who contend for a literal
fenfe of the words, cannot poftibly be in the right. On
the contrary, our Saviour's words are fo far from mak-
ing for their doctrine of tranfubftantiation, that they
are an effectual confutation of it.
Secondly, that the fenfe that the proteftants give of
thofe words, is the moft natural and eafy, tho' it be a
figurative one ; and fuch a fenfe it is, as it cannot be
imagined but they who were prefent when our Saviour
fpoke the words, muft naturally and neceflarily hit
vpon, and underftand him in.
Thus far I have already gone. What I further pro-
|>ofed to mew, was, c The danger of this article of
* tranfubftantiation, forafmuch as it overthrows the
4 evidence of the whole chriftian religion ; and the in-
* fufEciency of that plea or apology which the papifts
6 ufually make for this doctrine, from the unaccounta-
* blenefs and inconceivablenefs of other gofpel-doc-
* trines j as that of the trinity and incarnation.'
For
Tra?ifubftantiation9 anfwered. nq
For the two things which are commonly faid by
the papifts, not (o much by way of anfwering our ar-
guments (for that is defpaired of) as for taking us ofF
from laying fo great a ftrefs upon this point, as we
are wont to do, are thefe :
Firft of all, it is infinuated frequently by thenv
that whether the church of Rome be right or wrong;
in this matter, yet it is no great bufinefs. The con-
troverfy is wholly upon a matter of fpeculation. If
they fhould be miftaken in their notions, yet what is
the evil confequence ? There is nothing of practice
depends upon the believing or the not believing their
doctrine. I may live as- well, and ferveGod as well,
tho' I do believe tranfubftantiation, or do not believe
it. And can we think, that a mere fpeculative point
that hath no influence upon our practice, (hould be
worth fo hotly contending for ?
This is one thing that is faid. And then another
thing that is often thrown upon us, is this : Why are
we fo incredulous about this doctrine of the church ?
Why do we ftand fo much upon the reafon of the
thing ? Will we believe nothing but what is fully
made out to us by reafon ? Do not we believe abun-
dance of points that are as much above our reafon
as tranfubftantiation is ? If we will not believe articles
of faith till we can fatisfy ourfelves about the reafon-
ablenefs of every one of them, we muft be unbelievers
all the days of our life. The doctrine of tranfubftan-
tiation feems to be impoinble, and therefore we reject
it j but muft we not, upon the fame pretence, reject
the doctrine of the trinity, the doctrine of the refur-
rection, and feveral other articles of faith? For thefe
are every whit as impolfibJe tg pur reafon as their
doctrine is,
Thefe
230 The ufualplea cr apology for
Thefe two things are frequently made ufe of to
beat us from our hold \ and indeed, by this artifice,
they have done fome confiderable advantage to their
caufe, by impofing upon unwary, unthinking men,
that this point of tranfubftantiation is either not fo
neceflary, or not (o incredible, as to deferve fuch a
mighty buftle ana1 controverfy as we make about it.
I think it will not be labour loll to give fome anfwer
to them.
1. I begin with the firft. It is pretended, that the
doctrine of tranfubftantiation is wholly a fpeculative
point ; that our practice is no ways concerned in it 5 .
and therefore, tho' it mould be an error, yet what
great matter is it for a man to be miftaken ? Will a
pure miftake-of a man's understanding, fo long as he
believes as rightly as he can, be any bar to his fal-
vation at the laft day ? Why then do we make fuch a
noife and. clamour about this doctrine, fince it fo little
concerns our falvation ?
( 1 .) To this I fay firft of all : fuppofe it to be merely
a fpeculative error, and no ways to influence upon our
practice, yet they themfelves have laid fo great ftrefs
upon it, that we muft for ever continue in the fame
diftance from them that we do, unlefs they would mol-
lify their terms of communion. Be the error ever {o
fmall in itfelf, yet they have made the believing of
it an article of faith, and neceflary to falvation. It is
one of thofe. twelve articles which the pope, by the
order of the council of Trent, hath added to the apo-
ftles creed. And where-ever that council is received,
every clergyman among them is bound not only to
fubfcribe,. but to fwear his belief of this, and ail thofe
other additions ; and they do not only fwear for them-
felves, but they are. bound by their oath to teach and
in»
Vranfubftantiation, anfwered. 231
inftruct the people in this faith, as that faith without
which no man can be faved. So that be the matter
never fo fmall in itfelf, they have made it a great bu-
finefs. Every man who hath cure of fouls, takes an
oath, that he believes the doctrine of tranfubfbntiation
himfelf, as a neceffary article of the chriflian faith ;
and that he will do his utmofl endeavour, that all thofe
who are under his care fhould believe fo likewife.
I fay nothing but what is true, as any man will be
convinced who will be at the pains to read over pope
Pius the fourth's bull, at the end of the council of
Trent, concerning the form of the oath of profeffion
of faith. Is there now any dallying in fuch a matter
as this ? Was it ten times of lefs confequence than it
is, yet we ought to be careful of profeffing this doc-
trine as an article of faith, when we believe it to be
an error ; and much more of fwearing to the belief
of it. If it was a matter of no moment before, they
have now made it to be a matter of infinite moment ;
for now no man can be honefl, or a good chriflian,
who doth not entirely fwallow this hard pill of tran-
fubftantiation : But this is not all.
(2.) For, in the fee on d place, I defire this may be
confidered : It is faid that the doctrine of tranfubftan-
tiation. if it be an error, is only a fpeculative one9
and hath no influence upon practice. This is faid ;
but it is utterly falfe. For no lefs follows upon this
belief than the committing of idolatry; and fure no
wife man will fay, but that idolatry is a matter of
practice, which it infinitely concerns every chriflian to
avoid. The miilakes about the prefence of Chrift's
body, if they terminated there, would not be fo very
dangerous ; but they draw after them fuch fearful con-
fluences, as to matter of divine worfhip, that no
man
%% 2 The ufual plea or apology for
man who hath the leaft care of his foul, but will think
himfelf extreamly concerned to inform himfelf rightly.
What can be greater or grofTer idolatry in the world,
than to worfhip and perform divine adoration to a
piece of bread, as if it was very God Almighty ? Yet
this practice the doelxine of tranfubftantiation doth*
necelTarily and unavoidably bring us to. If the con-
secrated bread be really Chrift's body, and his foul
and deity be hypoftaticalty united therewith (as they,
all teach) then I cannot fee but that we are bound to*
perform divine worfhip to the elements in the faera-
ment, or to that which in common fpeech we pro-
teftants call bread and wine, And accordingly, in.
purfuance of this doclrine of tranfubftantiation, all
the papifts univerfally do actually worfhip the bread
and wine in the facrament as very God Almighty,.,
and are bound by the laws of their religion fo to do*
But what now if tranfubftantiation be an error, tnj
what a cafe are they then ? Are they not the moft
grofs idolaters? fuch they are, or there hath never
been any idolatry in the world. And this they them-
felves have been fo aware of, that one of their jefuits-
fcruples not to affirm, That, if the dcclrine cf tran-
fubftantiation be not true, the chrijlians of the Roman -
communion are as. great idolaters,.. in worjhiping the hojl,
as the Indians are, in worjhiping a red cloth for Gcd
Almighty* If now this be the natural and neceffary
confeo^ence of tranfubftantiation, is it fuch a light ;
matter, that we fhould take no notice of it, but put.
it among the difputes and controverfies of the fchools, ,
which it is not a farthing matter, whether we believe ;
cm the one fide, or the other ?
(3.) But farther y&t, I have this in the third place
to repr efent in anfwer to their fuggeltion ; They fay
the
^ranfuhftanttatlon^ atifwer'd. 233
the doctrine of tranfubftantiation is but a matter of
mere fpeculation. Be it fo : But yet this we fay, it
is fuch a matter of fpeculation, that if it be once ad-
mitted, it will make the very foundations of chriftia-
nity, and be in danger of overthrowing the evidence
of our whole religion. And therefore certainly it is
not fo light, but that great ftrefs mould be laid upon
it. And this being one of the principal points I un-
dertook to fpeak to, I mail therefore confider it more
fully.
We fay, that the very fuppofing tranfubftantiation,.
deftroys thofe grounds upon which we do believe our
Saviour's doctrine. If this popifh tenet be true, it is
impoilible for us ever to be allured ourfelves, or to be
able to affure others, that chriftianity is true.
This you will fay is a very heavy charge. But in
truth as heavy as it is, it may be very evidently made
good. For I would afk, what are the grounds upon
which any of us do believe the chriftian faith, or
would perfuade others to believe it ? If we would an-
fwer reafonably, we muft fay thus : The ground up-
on which we believe ChrifVs religion, is the teftimo-
ny of the apoftles, and other honeft men who lived
in the time of Jefus Chrift, and heard him publifh
his doctrine, and were witneiTes of the proofs he gave
of it : Which doctrine and which proofs they timely
committed to writing, and thofe writings we may
fafely believe, upon the credit and authority of univer-
fal tradition, to be fincerely conveyed down to us.
This is the direct anfwer to this queftion : Not deny-
ing, in the mean while, that there are a great many
other collateral evidences of the truth of chriftianity,
though all depending on the fame foundation. Well,
but upon this queftion3 thus anfwered, there arifeth.
another*
234 ^oe ufaal plea or apology for
another. All the truth of our belief dependeth onj
the truth of the apoflles and other firft witnefTes their !
belief. If they were miftaken, then are we too*
Now how (hall we be fure that they were not impofed
rapon ? All the anfwer now that can be given to this
queftion is this ; It is impofiible the apoftles and other
witnefTes of Chrift's actions and doctrines, fhould be
miftaken, for they had the evidence of their fenfes for
what they believed t and what they reported to us.
They heard Chrift with their own ears preaching fuch
doctrines, as we now call the articles of our faith ;
which doctrines their reafon told them were good in
themfelves, and agreeable to the doctrine of the pro-
phets. They likewife faw with their eyes, the proofs
that Chrift gave of them, being prefent at the migh-
ty miracles he wrought : feeing him caft out devils,
raife the dead, cure all difeafes, and giving all other
evidences of a divine power in him, Laflly, after
they had feen him put to death, they had all their
fenfes to witnefs that he was raifed again from the
dead, and converfed with them for many days.
Here therefore we are to fix the firft grounds of our
faith, viz. upon the evidence of our fenfe. The
apoftles, and thofe other firft chriftians who conveyed
ctir religion down to us, did therefore believe, be^-
eaufe they faw, and heard, and felt ; and upon the
credit of thofe their fenfes, they were allured, that
what they delivered to pofterity, concerning Jefus and
his religion, was true. And indeed it is impoiiible
there fhould be any other evidence than this, for the
truth of any divine revelation, let it be of what na-
ture it will ; it is into this proportion, that our fenfes
do not deceive us9 that we are at laft to refolve all the
arguments we have for the truth or credibility ot any
revealed
revealed religion. And accordingly we find the argu-
ments of the apoftles, when they would perfuade men
to chriftianity, always proceed upon this ground.
They were eye and ear-wltnejfes of what Jefus did9
and taught, Luke i. 2, 4. and of his refurrection from
the dead ; and therefore they durft avow to all the
world, that he was the Mefliah. That which was from
the beginning, faith St. John, 1 Ep. i. 1 , 5 . that which
we have heard^ that which we have feen with our eyes9
and looked upon, and our hands have handled of the
word of life, that we declare unto you.
This now being taken for granted, we thus form
our argument. If the ground of our faith be the
truth of our fenfes, whoever teacheth any doctrine
that fuppofeth our fenfes may be deceived, doth, fo far
as he teacheth it, overthrow the ground of our faith.
Or to put it plainer: If the laft reafon for which we
believe the truth of the chriftian doctrine be founded
in this proportion, That we are to believe our fenfes ;
then that doctrine which fuppofes that we are not to
believe our fenfes, doth quite overthrow the reafon,
and ground of our belief. But the doctrine of tran-
fubftantiation, as it is maintained by the papifts, doth
quite take away the credit of our fenfes. For it teach-
eth, That that which to all our fenfes (when we make
the beft ufe of them. that is poflible) appears to be
plain bread and wine, as much as any bread and wTine
in the world can appear to be fo, is yet really not
bread and wine, but a quite different thing, even the
body and blood of Chrift which is in heaven. Upon
thefe premifes, I fay, that doctrine thus teaching,
muft be concluded to take quite away all the evidence
we have for our belief of chriftianity : It this doctrine
be true $ then could not the apoftles or any others be
certain3
2%6 ¥he ufual plea or apology for
certain, that what they thought they faw and heard,
concerning Jefus Chrift, was true ; and confequentlv !
much lefs could they perfuade others they preachec
to, that what they taught concerning him was true 3
and leaft of all us, who live at this diftance of time. I
I will make this a little plainer if I can. We will
fuppofe, as the doctors of the Roman church would
have us, that tranfubftanliation was a doctrine of our
Saviour's which he taught the apoftles, and that they 1
were to teach it to others, as an article of faith. And
accordingly we will fuppofe, that one of them is en-
deavouring to bring a heathen over to the chriftian
religion. The man, as is but reafonable, firft defires I
to hear an account of this religion he would perfuade
him to : The apoftle thereupon declares to him the
articles of the chriftian faith,, and among the reft, be
tells him that one article is, That in every chriftian-
facrament of the eucharift, when five words are fa id
by the prieft, that which appears to him a fmall round
wafer, and hath, if he may believe his fenfes, all the
other characters of a wafer, yet is not a wafer, but
the true natural body and blood of Chrift, who was
crucified at Jerufalem. The man mightily flicks at
this, as he has good reafon. " Sir, faith he, this is
" a very hard doclrine to be believed. I cannot for
ic my life diftruft the evidence of my fenfes -, I mufti
iC believe what I fee, and what I tafte, and what I
"feel; and beftdes, it is very hard to conceive, in
*c reafon, how the whole proportion of the body of
** a man, can be crowded into fo fmall a bulk as a
*c wafer bears. Ay but, (fays the apoftle,) Chrift who
" was truth itfelf, and could not deceive, nor be de-
<c ceived, he hath faid, that this is my bodyy when he
** had given bread to his difciples to eat. You ought
« not
^ranfubfiantiation^ anfwer'd. 237
** not therefore to urge your fenfes againft- fo infallible
«* an authority. Right (faith the man) if I were con-
" vinced that all that Chrift faid was true, and that
*' he was an infallible teacher fent from God, I would
* do what I could to fwallow this hard pill, the belief
•* that bread is an human body, tho' it be againft the
*' grain of my fenfes : But how fhall I be allured
" that your Jefus was fo infallible an oracle as you
" fpeak him ?"
What now can the preacher, whoever he be, re-
ply to him more than this, That he hath been con-
verfant with our Saviour all the time that he lived ;
that he faw his actions, and heard his doctrines, and
that they were both exactly framed according to the
characters that God had before given of the Meffiah
in the law and in the prophets ; that he was prefent
at thofe teftimonies that God, by voices from heaven,
gave to his Son Jefus ; that he had feen him work
fuch miracles, as were plainly the feal of God to the
truth of his miffion ; and laftly, that he had feen him
rife from the dead, and vifibly afcend into heaven.
Thefe now, I grant, are undeniable arguments of the
divinity and truth of our Saviour : But whether will
the pagan be fatisfied with them ? May he not juftly
thus reply ? " Sir, It cannot be denied but that you
u fpeak great and glorious things of your crucified
"Jefus 5 but yet, if you mind, all the arguments
fe< that you bring for the truth of his religion are,
" That you have beard and feen fuch wonderful
u proofs of it. So it feems you lay a great ftrefs up*
<c on your hearing and feeing, and your other fenfes,
** and you would have me do fo too. But may not
*' I as much truft to my own fenfes as to yours ;
^ Will you pretend to perfuade me, that I fhould be-
3 f* lifcve
238 The ufual plea or apology for
65 lieve your fenfes, when, at the fame time, you for-
** bid me te believe my own ? I am as certain, by
«' my eyes, and fmell, and handling, that what you
M call the body of Chrift, is no more than a piece!
<* of bread, as you can be certain, that ever you heard
" a voice from heaven, in atteftation that Jefus was;1
ci the Son of God -, or, as you can be certain, thai!
«4 ever you faw him work any miracles ; or, as you can 1
** be certain that ever you heard him fpeak, or touch-
*' ed him, or converfed with him after he rofe from!
6C the dead. You have no other evidence but youri'j
" fenfes for the truth of what you would perfuade
*c me to, the chriftian religion : I have the fame evi-
« dence againft the truth of what you would perfuade
" me to, the doctrine of tranfubftantiation. If your
<c fenfes may be believed, why may not mine ? If
«f both our fenfes may not be believed in one matter,
♦c then why fhould they be believed in another?"
This is a very familiar, but a true reprefentation of
the cafe : And I would gladly know, how any papifi I
in the world, that owns tranfubftantiation (as every pa-
pift mull: do) can take off this argument.
The conclullon therefore is, That if tranfubftan-
tiation be true, it can never be made to appear, that
chriftianity is true ; becaufe tranfubftantiation being
fuppofed, the credit of our fenfes is taken away ; and
yet upon their credit our belief of chriftianity is
founded.
But to this the Romanifts fay, That our fenfes, in
the bufinefs of the facrament, are noways abufed or
deceiv'd. Whatever is the proper object of our fenfes,
is, in the confecrated bread, left entire. That which
appears to our eyes to be white and round, is really
Jo i that which to our tafte appears to have the relifh
I of
Tranfubftantiation^ anfwer'd. 23 <j
of bread, hath really that relifh ; and fo of the other
objects of our fenfes. All the miftake, fay they, lies
here : Our fenfes reprefent truly, but we, in our
minds are apt to form a wrong judgment of the thing
that is convey'd under thefe fenfible qualities. We
are not deceived in the objects of our fenfes, but we
may he deceived by the fubftances that are convey'd
under thofe objects.
This is all that I know they have to defend them-
felves with againft the argument I have been urging :
But in truth, if you Will well confider it, it fignifies
nothing at all to the purpofe. The queftion is not,
whether there be really fuch impreiiions made to our
outward fenfes, as we find ourfelves fenfible of, (for
nobody denies) but whether, when fuch impreiiions
are made to our fenfes, and we ufe our fenfes, not
one ftngly, but all of them together, to try the matter
by, and we add our reafon to boot, and this in a
matter that is as much the object of fenfe as any in
the world ; I fay, the queftion is, whether in this cafe,
we may not, by the help of our fenfes, make a true
judgment of the object; or rather, whether we ought
not, all things duly examined by our reafon which
our fenfes offer us, give judgment according to the
import of our fenfes? We fay, we ought to do fo.
The papifts fay, we ought not : But in fo faying,
they quite overturn the credit and evidence of all
fenfe; for, at this rate of talking, no man can be
allured that any thing he fees, is the thing he takes it
to be ; or that any thing he taftes, is the thing he
fancieth it ; and fo of the reft.
But they fay further to this : It is true, in all other
cafes, our fenfes (efpecially when we make ufe of all
of them, and call our reafon in to their afliftance)
are
240 The ufual plea or apology for
are to be believ'd ; only there is a particular excep-
tion in this cafe of the confecrated bread and wine,
becaufe Chrift, who cannot lie, hath pronounc'd them
to be his body and blood. But to this we reply, that
Chrift hath nowhere pronounc'd fo; but his words
import directly the contrary, as, I think, we have al- !
ready fufficiently proved.
2. But I haften to the other thing which I was to in-
iift upon 5 and that is, the infufficiency of that plea
or apology which the papifts ufually make for their
doctrine of tranfubftantiation, from the unaccountable-
nefs or inconceivablenefs of feveral others of our Sa-
viour's doctrines.
Whenever we urge to them the unintelligiblenefs or
contradictions of this their tenet, that which they
think to flop our mouths with, is 5 cc Will you be a
« chriftian, or will you not ? If you will, then you
<c mult be led by faith, and not by fenfe. You muft
*c believe what God hath faid, and not what your own
«' carnal, fallible reafon fuggefts : You cannot con-
*e ceive how that which appears bread, mould be the
**< true real body of Chrift which is in heaven. Why,
*« can you conceive any better of many of the my-
*K fteries of chriftianity ? Is not the incarnation of
<c our Saviour, the manner how God and man can be
*€ one perfon, every whit as great and as unaccount-
6* able a fecret ? Are you not as much at a lofs, when
**< you endeavour to reconcile the doctrine of the
«c blefled trinity with your reafon, as you are in the
■<* cafe you object againft us ? Can you, or any man
«c living, give a more intelligible account of that my-
« ftery, than we can do of tranfubftantiation ? Will
«€ not the notion of three in one, be eternally as great
*< a contradiction, as it is that the body of Chrift
*< fhouli
Tranfubftantiatioii) anfwer'd. 241
cc mould be in a thoufand places at once ? Leave
»« therefore thefe fenfual hankerings after reafon, and
tc believe whatever God faith is true, how impoffible
" foever it feems to us : It is not our bufinefs to dif-
u pute God's afTertions, but to fubmit to them."
This, that they fay, is very plaufibly faid ; and it
is likely, with unwary perfons, may take very much,
and hath often done fo.
But if you will confider well, you will find, there
is no force at all in what is faid 5 becaufe there is a
vaft difference and difparity between the things we
charge them with, and the things that they offer for
the defence of themfelves.
Three things I fhall offer, whereby that difference
will manifeflly appear :
( 1.) Firft of all, The doctrine of the trinity, how
unconceivable foever it be, as likewife the doctrine of
our Saviour's incarnation, are plainly and evidently
deliver'd in the fcripture ; fo plainly, that we muft de-
ny the authority of the book of God, if we deny
them : Nay, they are the very firft principles of chri-
ftianity, and fet down in the New-teftament as fuch ;
and none, from Chrift's time to this, ever rejected
them, but were declared heretics for fo doin<y.
Whereas the doclrine of tranfubftantiation hath no
foundation in fcripture, nay, is directly contrarv to
the words of our Saviour, as I hope I have fufHcient-
ly proved ; and not only fo, but it may be fully prov-
ed, it was doclrine never known to the fathers for the
firft: eight hundred years after Chrift ; but it Is a per-
fect novelty, flrfl eftablifh'd by the council of La-
teran ; and, by a very good token, it was the fame
council that firft decreed the lawfulness of depofin<y
of princes, and abfolving fubjects from their allegiance
Vol. VII. M D *
t6rl The .ufual plea or apology for
in the cafe of herefy : So that it is plain impudence in
any, to name the doctrine of tranfubftantiation with
thoie other chriftian doctrines, as to the authority of
them, from the book of God.
(2.) But fecondly, There is this further difference
between the doctrine of tranfubftantiation, and the do-
ctrine of the trinity, and the incarnation of our Lord)
and fuch other myfteries of the gofpel, that the firft is
plainly a matter that falls under our fenfes, but the
other do not fo : This ought extremely much to be
regarded in this prefent controversy. It is no wonder,
xwe cannot fathom the depth of the trinity, becaufe
God is an infinite being, and our understandings
are all finite. We may as reafonably think, that we
can contain the ocean in a fmall {hell, as think we
can fully and adequately comprehend the nature of
God in our {hallow underftandings. The object is
wonderfully too great for us ; and therefore if we will
be too curious and inquifitive, it is but juft, and un-
avoidably neceflary, that we be entangled in our own
nets. God only knows his own nature, and we know
no more of it than he reveals to us, and therefore we
have no more to do, but to believe what we are cer-
tain he hath reveal'd ; and tho' we cannot compre-
hend what he hath reveal'd concerning himfelf, nor
reconcile it with our {hallow reafon, yet we know
our reafon. was never given us for that purpofe; we
know there is an infinite difproportion between the
object, and the faculty that is to be employ 'd about it.
And tho' we cannot fatisfy ourfelves in our fpecula-
tions concerning God, yet we have ftrong reafon to
believe, that our being not fatisfy'd doth rather pro-
ceed from the greatnefs of the object, and the weak-
nefs
Tranfubftantiatiof!) anfwer'd. 243
nets of ourunderftanding, than from any inco-nfiften-
cy or unintelligiblenefs of the thing itfelf.
But then* when we come to talk of tranfubftantia-
tion, it is quite another matter. This is a juft objecl:
of fenfe, nay, an object of all the five fenfes. If we
can judge of any thing in the world, fure we may
judge of the reality of a piece of bread, or of a cup
of wine. All things that fall under our fenfes, we
are certainly competent judges of, or elfe We muft fuf-
pend all manner of determination concerning things '
to the end of the world.
Never therefore let the Romanifts fay5 that our not
being able to give an account of the trinity, is as
much an argument againft the truth of that myftery,
as our not being able to give an account of tranfub-
ftantiation is an argument againft. that :• for you fee
there is an infinite difparity in the inftances. If the
nature of God fell under our fenfes, and was to be
judged of by them, as all bodies are, they would ar-
gue right, and we would not conteft againft them ;
but it is quite otherwife, God is infinite, and we are
finite, and therefore he exceeds our meafure. But
the things that are expofed to our fenfes, they are like
ourfelves, and our fenfes were given us for the mak-
ing judgments about them -> and it would be an affront
to the God that gave us them, to think, that when
we ufed them as well as we could, we fhould be per-
petually miftaken, as to fome certain objects.
(3.) But thirdly, and laftly ; The papifts fet the
trinity againft tranfubftantiation, and they fay, we may
as well refufe the one doclrine as the other, becaufe
they are equally againft reafon, equally contradictions*
But we utterly deny it, and that upon this account :
We can fhew a great many impoflibilities and contra-
M a dictioni
244 ^e ujual flea or apology, Sec.
dictions in their doctrine of tranfubftantiation, evi-
dent to every one that hath common fenfe and rea-
fon ; and fach impoflibilities and contradictions as
they can noways get clear from, with all the fubtilties,
and niceties, and diftinciions, that they can make ufe
of- But they cannot mew us any fuch contradictions
or impoflibilities in the doctrine of the trinity, how
myfterious and incomprehenfible foever it be counted ; -
no, nor in any other myftery of chriflianity. There
is no doctrine reveal'd by Chrift, but we can, from
fcripture, give fuch an account of it, as that no man
can charge any abfurdity upon it. Tho' we cannot
prove it by reafon, yet when God hath once reveal'd
it, we can prove that it is not contrary to reafon.
And there is this thing further to be faid about the
trinity, That how intricate and contradictious foever
the papifts account it, yet it was owned and believed,
for fome ages, by the wifeft and molt learned of the
heathens themfeives ; and even by feveral of thofe
who were the bittereft enemies of chriftianity. Now
thefe, fure, did not think it againft reafon, but highly
agreeable to it. But the Romanifts cannot fay this,
nor any thing like it, for their dodtrine of tranfub-
ftantktion ; for I dare challenge any of them to (hew
when, or where, either Pagan, or Turk, or Jew, or
any one but a papift, did, or could believe fo abfurd
a doctrine, as that of tnm fu bftantiation is.
But I have faid enough upon this point. Confider
ivhat you have beard, &c.
S E R-
X
T
Concerning the adoration of the Hoft.
The fifth fermon on the fame text.
i Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25.
For I have received of the Lord that whkh 1
alfo delivered to ycu, that the Lord J ejus, the
fame night in which he was betrayed, took
bread ;
And when he had given thanks,, he brake it, and
faidy take, eat : this is my body, which is broken
for you : this do in remembrance of me.
After the fame manner alfo he took the cup, when
he had fupped, faying, This cup is the new-
teftament in my blood : This do ye, as oft as ye
drink it, in remembrance of me.
|HAT patience of yours which hath
$*M:T been exercifed with feveral difcourfes
&Sw uPon this text, I beg once more to try,
~~ IPtit and then I fhall difmifs the argument.
£&(*» That which led me to pitch upon
this text was, the fair occafion it gave me to enquire
into the dodlrine and practices of the prefent Roman
M 3 . church,
246 Concerning the adoration of the Hoft.
church, touching the facrament of the Lord's fop*
per : For here we have a landing rule laid do wo, by
which the practice and doctrines of all churches in
this matter are to be tried ; and that is, the agreeable-
nefs or conformity of them to what the apoftles hrli
received of the Lord9 and afterwards deliver* d unto,
the church. By this teft, we meant to examine the
prefent Roman-catholic tenets about the facrament ;
and thofe we have already examined, I doubt not,
appear to you fo far from being apoftolical, or catho-
lic, or chriflian, that they are quite contrary ; that
is to fay, are fuch as were not only not known to the
apoftles, and the primitive churches of Chrift, for
feveral ages, but perfectly contradictory to what was*
then taught and pradrifed > and befides that, are a-
gainft all fenfe and reafon.
Becaufe we are a going off from this argument, I
think it not arnifs to repeat to you the feveral points,
cr articles, wherein we accufed that church, for hav-
ing departed from the rule of the text in the mat-
ter of the facrament \ for they are really worth your
remembering.
Ten errors, or abufes of this kind, we charge them
with ; the firft five of which I only named , the o-
ther five I propofed fully to cifcourfe of: The firft
five were thefe :
1. Firft, Their making of feven facraments ne-
ccfTary to falvation, altho' not all necefTary to every
one y whereas it can never be proved, that our Saviour
ordained any more than two.
2. Secondly, Their having the whole fervice or
office of the facraments in the Latin tongue, which
is a language which the people do not underftand,
and by which, confequently, they cannot be edified ;
which
Concerning the adoration of the Hofi 247
which kind of practice is, for that reafon, condemn'd
by St. Paul in the fourteenth chapter of his firfl epiflle
to the Corinthians.
3. Thirdly, The prieft's muttering the words of
confecration to himfelf, fo as that none of the con-
gregation fhall hear what he fays, which is without
any precedent in ancient times.
4. Fourthly, Their making the prieft's good in-
tentions neceffary to the efficacy of the facrament \
tho' he pronounce the words of confecration, yet it
he intend not to make the body and blood of Chrift in
his mind, there is no body and blood made, and con
fequently all they who come to receive, tho' they
come never fo worthily and devoutly difpofed, yet
they receive no facrament.
5. Fifthly, The multitude of facraments or maiTts
which they allow to be perform' d in the fame church*,
on the fame day, nay, even at the fame time; and
this at the inftance of any one who will be at the
charge of buying them. The price indeed is not
much more than twelve-pence a mafs ; but yet it
is a vile difhonour to, and proftitution of, the blelled
facrament of our Lord's body and blood,
Tho' thefe errors and corruptions be great enough,
yet the other five, which I was to infill upon more
largely, do far exceed them ; fo grievous they are,
that if the church of Rome be found guilty of any
one of them, no man, that reads the fcripture, can
believe that the facrament, as they hoM it, can be the
fame with that which our Saviour inftituted.
Firfl:, The firfl is, That whereas in every mafs that
is faid in their church (and there are every day faid
many thoufands) they have a facrament, yet there is
none communicates but the priefl -3 fo that here is
M 4 every
248 Concerning the adoration of the Hoft.
every day, in the church of R-ome, a communion
without a communion.
Secondly, That at thofe folemn times, when they
will allow the people to communicate with the prieft
in the holy facrament, yet they rob them of half of
it ; for they will not allow any but the prieft, who
then adminifters, to receive the cup : fo that here,
tho' there be a communion, yet it is but half of that
communion which our Saviour inftituted.
Thirdly, They have transformed the facrament in-
to a facriflce ; whereas the only myftery of it confifts
in this, that therein Chrift gives his body and blood,
in a fpiritual manner, to be fed upon by us ; they
have made a new bufmefs of it : for in every facra-
ment they pretend to offer up to God our Saviour's
very body and blood, as a true, proper facrsfice, pro-
pitiatory both for the quick and the dead.
Fourthly, Whereas in this facrament, according to
our Saviour's inftitution, there is a material part, and
a fpiritual ; the fign, and the thing fignified'; the
bread and wine to be received for our bodily fufte-
nance, and the body and blood of Chrift for the food
of cur fouls ; they have quite taken away the former
from us by their doctrine of tranfubftantiation, which
teacheth, that after the prieft hath faid the words of
confecration, there is no bread and wine left upon the
table, and confequently none can be received, but all
is turned into the very body and blood of Chrift.
Fifthly and laftly, This bread, as we are apt to call
it, which we receive and eat, they require us to wor-
ship and adore as God Almighty.
Thefe are the points and articles in which we ac-
cufe the church of Rome to have grievoufly corrupted
and
Concerning the adoration of the Hoft. 249
and~ depraved the chriftian doctrine and practice in
this matter of the facrament.
As to the four firft of them, I have already fully
made good this charge againft them ; the laft article
only remains to be fpoken to, which I fhall now dif-
cufs as briefly and plainly as I can.
The thing then to be enquired into at this time, is,
Whether the Romanifts do not grievoufly amifs, and
are guilty of a great corruption in this matter of the
facrament, when they give to it the very fame wor-
ship that they give to God, and oblige all thofe who
fhall be of their communion to do the fame : that this
is their practice, no papift can deny ; that it is the
doctrine and command of their church, the council of
Trent, to which all their priefts are fworn, will, in
exprefs words, afllire us. After that council hath de-
clared, that < by the words of cenfecration, the whole
* fubftance of the bread is turned into the fubftance
c of the body of Chrift, and the whole fubftance" 0
6 the wine into the fubftance of the blood of Chrift/
there immediately follow thefe words: "It is not
M therefore to be doubted, but that ail faithful chri-
" ftians fliould give to this facrament, that higheft
" worship called latria^ which is due to the true
" God.3' And whoever afErms otherwife, is, by a
canon of that council, pronounced accurfed : and this
worfhip they give to the hoft [viz. that round wafer
which wTe call the confecrated bread) not only at the
time of receiving it, but whenever it is carried about
in the ftreets. All paftengers are then, by the found
of a bell, admonimed to pay their worfhip and devo-
tions to the God that paneth by them ; and if any
one {hall fay, that this practice of theirs is not allow-
M 5 . * able.
250 Concerning the adoration of the Hoft.
able, and that they are idolatrous for fo doing, he ftfe
in the fame canon, pronounced accurfed.
That this kind of worihip was ever commanded by
our Saviour, or given by the apoftles, or allowed, or
fo much as thought on in their times -3 as there is no-
thing m the holy fcriptures from whence we may ga-
ther it £ fo there is enough in the nature and contri-
vance of chriftianity, from whence we may plainly
gather the contrary.
Can it be imagined, that that religion which doth
fo ftri&Iy forbid all idolatry, mould fet up a God to
be wor&ipped, which, to all thofe that will believe
their fenfes, can appear no other than an idol, becaufe
it appears a mere piece of bread : that the catholic
church of Chrift, in the firfl ages,, had no fuch kind
of worihip, befides a profound filenee of antiquity
concerning it, we have this undeniable argument, that
the pagans would have hit them in the teeth with it3>
r^enever the chriftians reproved them for their many
idols ; but yet we do not find that ever they did. All
the writings of the chriftian fathers are full of invec-
tives againft. the heathen idolatry ; they take a great
deal of pains to expofe the folly and ridiculoufnefs of
giving divine worihip to that which is but a creature.,*
or that which is the work of man's hands. Now?
with what face could they do this, if, at the fame
time, they were guilty of the fame practices ? And
iho' we mould fuppofe that they could fatisfy them-
felves with this, that what the pagans worfhipped'
were real idols and falfe gods, but that which they
worfhipped was Jefus Chriit the Son of God, under
the form of bread y I fay, tho' they might fatisfy theiii-
felves with this, yet how would this fatisfy the pa-
gans ? By them a piece of bread would ftill be thought
Concerning the adoration of the Hofi. 251
a piece of bread, however the chriftians fanfkd it was
God Almighty. If a pagan had been prefent at one
of the chriitian affemblies, and at the elevation of the
hoft had feen them zll fall down, and worfhip, would
not he think that he had every jot as great reafon to
reproach them for adoring a piece of bread, as they
had to reproach him for adoring the fun, or moon, or
this, or the other image ? Minutius Fadix, a very
early chriftian writer, thus harangues it againir. the
pagans : " They, fays he, melt brafs -, they caft it,
they fet it up, and fatten it : it is yet no god.
4 They polifh it, they adorn it ; neither is it yet a
god : but, fee now, they confecrate it, they pray
44 to it j then as foon as men will have it to be a god9
" it is a god."
Whether now might not the pagans return the fame
raillery upon the chriftians, fuppofing the practice we
are now fpeakin'g againlt, had been then in ufe ? I
give it you in the words of one of our divines, who
hath moil excellently handled this fubjecl: : " Chri-
44 ftians fow wheat, they cut, gather, and threfh it :
" it is no Chri-ft yet. They grind it, they lift it, they
44 bake it : it is ftill but a wafer. They fet it U'jsofi
44 an altar, they lift it up, they crofs it feveral times 1
46 it is yet the fame it was before. At lail, they fpeak
*c the five words of confecration 3 prefently isn mira-
44 cles break forth ; and among an hundred wafers,
<4 which are all like to one another, that which the
64 prieft pleafeth to think upon, that is their Saviour."
If the practice of the pagans in this matter was abfurd
and ridiculous, then tvery jot as much was the prac-
tice of the chriftians : and might have been as eafily
made appear iQ> and would, without doubt, have been
3 matfe
25.2 Concerning the adoration of the Hofi.
made fo, had there ever been any fuch practice among
them.
But let the practice of the church be as it will, let
us come to the reafon of the thing. Were the old
pagans idolaters or not ? If they were not, why do the
fcriptures, and all the chriftian writers, charge them
for fuch ? If they were, it will be eafy to be proved,
that they who adore the hoft, in the blefTed facramentj-
with the worfhip that is due to God only, are idola-
ters as much as they.
i. For firft of all, Is it idolatry to worfhip that for
God which is not God ? If it be not idolatry, then the
pagans were not idolaters : if it be, then they who
worfhip the hoft with, divine worfhip arc idolaters;
for certainly that which they worfhip is not God, is
not our Saviour, but a wafer, a piece of bread. It is
true, they do not think fo, but we are certain that k
is nothing elfe ; as certain as we can be of any thing
that our fenfes9 backed with the beft reafon, can re-
port to us. If ignorance and miftake in this matter
will excufe the Romanifts, it will alfo excufe the Pa-
gans ; if it did not excufe thefe, neither will excufe it
thofe.
2. But fecondly, All the marks that the holy fcrip*-
tures give of an idol, and all the reproaches that they
caft upon it, do as well befit the popifh god in the
facrament, and. as heavily light upon it, as upon any
thing that was worfhipped by the pagans. It is a mark
of a pagan idol, and the reproach of it>. that it was
made by men ; (as both the Old and New-teftament
are vtry large and rhetorical in fetting forth.) Why
is not the god in the mafs as much the work of
mens hands, as any of the pagan idols were ? Nay,
bating the labour of the baker, there was none of them
j ever.
Concerning the adoration of the Hoft. 253
ever made fo quickly, and fo eafily as this ; for the
fpeaking but five words, with intention, doth it.
Let none be offended that I fay the papifts make
their god, or make the body and blood of Chrift ; for
it is their own word, and folemnly ufed by them.
And one of the greateft reafons for which they deny
our orders and priefthood in the proteftant church is,
becaufe we in our ordinations do not pretend to confer
a power of making the body of Chrift*
Furthermore the penmen of the holy fcripture think
they do not only fufficiently defcribe and mark out an
idol, but fufficiently alfo expofe it to laughter and
contempt, by reckoning up the many outrages- and ill
ufages it is obnoxious to, and from which it cannot
refcue itfelf. Nov/ there is no abufe of this kind which
they reckon upr but the god which the papifts adore
in the mafs, is every whit as liable to it, as any pagan
idol in the world. If Laban be laughed at for ferving
gods which were Jiolen away. Gen. xxxi. 30. are not
they we fpeak of as much to be laughed at whofe god
hath been fo often in danger of thieves, that they have
been forced to make a law for the fecure cuftody of
him ? If the Egyptians are reproached by Ifaiah for
worfhipping that, which at the long run, is caft to the
moles, and to the bats, chap. ii. 20. are not the Ro-
manifts as much to be reproached for worfhipping that
which is never fafe from the teeth of the rats and trie
mice,, if they can poffibly get at it ? If it be thought a
fufficient argument to prove the gods of the Babylo-
nians to be idols, becaufe they were forced to be car-
ried upon mens Jhoulders, otherwife they could not help
themfelves ; and in the time of calamity they were lia-
able to be carried away captive; which argument the
prophet Ifaiah (ch. iv, 6.) makes ufe of 3 will it not be
as
254 Concerning the adoration of the Hoft.
as good an argument to prove the hoft in the mafs to
be an idol, beeaufe it is expofed to the very fame in-
conveniences ? They do frequently carry it about from
place to place, to be worfhipped ; and there is one
day in the year fet apart to that purpofe, viz. Corpus
Chrifti day. And if we may believe hiftory, this hoft
hath likewife been taken from the chriftians, and car-
ried away captive by the mahometans.
In a word, there are many other characters by
which the holy fcriptures do defcribe and reproach the
pagan idols ; which if you will take the pains to fearch
out and apply to the popifh god in the mafs, you will
find that they fit the one every whit as exactly as the
other,
3. Bat there is a further thing to be faid againft the
popifh hoft, that will prove it in a more true {qi\{q to
be an idol or a falfe god, than any pagan idol can be
proved to be fo. The pagans (as the fcripture charg-
ed! them) made gods oifilver and gold, and wood and
Jlone ; yet they were never fo fottiih as to think, that
after they had formed thofe materials into fuch or fuch
figures or images, and by confecration had made them
gods ; I fay, they were never fo foitim to think that
by this confecration the filver, or the gold, or the
wood, or the ftone, loft their fubftances, and were
turned into the true nature and fubftance of that god
they meant to worfhip : No -3 they always believed tbat
what they thus confecrated, ftill retained its former
nature and fubftance, and was no more an object of"
their worfhip, than either as it was a reprefentation of
the god that they worfhipped, or as by their confe-
cration it became a receptacle, a houfe, a habitation
in which the god would peculiarly vouch fafe his pre-
fence. And if this idol or material god of theirs hap-
pened
Concerning the adoration cf the Hofi. 2 55
pened to be ftolen, or to be broken and defaced, or to
be carried away captive : they were far from thinking
that the object of their adoration, the god whom they
Worfhipped, was either ftoien or defaced, or carried
away captive : fuch affronts might be done to his
image, or to the houfe in which he dwelt, but he
himfelf was infinitely above all thofe injuries. This
was the pagan notion. But thofe we are now dealing
with, go upon quite other principles ; fuch principles
indeed as by a pagan would have been thought to have
reflected mightily upon the honour of God, and have
done a great injury to him. They teach, that that
bread of which the prieft by confecration makes Chrift
Jefus, (and fo an object of divine worfhip) is turned
into the very fubftance of that which they adore. By
confecration it is not made a reprefentation of our Sa-
viour, or a lodge or habitation for him to refide in,
but it is turned into his very fclf ; fa that it is no
longer bread, but c; the very body of Chrift, together
" with his foul and divinity united to it/' (as the coun-
cil of Trent- expreffeth it,) So that if this, which
they make the object of their worfhip (we call it a
wafer, they call it " the very body of Chrift, together
" with the foul and deity,") I fay, if this fhould hap-
pen to be ftoien or burnt, or trodden under foot, or
devoured by vermin ; they muft needs fay, and they
cannot deny, that it is their very Saviour, the perfon
whom they worfhip, that fufFers all thefe -abufes and
indignities. The heatheniih gods had power enough
to free themfelves from thofe extremities, for it was
but quitting rheir images or receptacles, and they were
at liberty. But the God of the chnltians is in a far
worfe condition, if the Romiili doctrine be true 5 for
according to them, after once the words cf confecra-
tion
2 $6 Concerning the adoration of theHofi.
tion are faid, and thereby the fubftance of the bread
turned into the body and blood of Chrift, it will con-
tinue fo to be as long as any of the accidents of bread
remain ; that is to fay, fo long as any of us would
think it to be bread.
4. But this is not all ; let me add this in the fourth
and laft place. Though all the reproaches that are caft
upon the pagan idols in fcripture, do fall heavily upon
the chriftian idol in the mafs (if we may fo call it,) yet
there is one thing for which that worfhip may be re-
proached, and which cafts fuch an indignation upon
the perfon they pretend to adore, that never the like
affront was put by any pagan upon his god. The
Romanifts have no fooner of the bread made a Savi-
our, and worfhipped him, but they prefently eat him.
Moft commonly indeed the prieft only eats Jefus
Chrift, but at the moft folemn times, the people alfo
eat him as well as he. Was there ever fuch a thing
as this heard of in any pagan country ? Did ever any
man make a god, confecrate him, and then adore him
with the fame religious wormip that he gives to the
fupream God, and then within a minute fwallow him
down, and fend him to thofe places which are not fit
to be named ? But yet this is done in the church of
Rome every day.
Cicero^ who was a pagan himfelf, and knew as
much of the pagan religion as any man living did,
tells us exprefly in his book de natura deorum^ lib. 3.
* that among all the religions of his time, there
* was no man of any fo foolifh and fottifh, as to pre-
* tend to eat his God. The Egyptians that worftiipped
the vileft of creatures, yet never dared to eat what
they had once worfhipped. But yet this afifront the
Romanifts put upon the adorable Jefus our God and
Sa-
Concerning the adoration of theHofl. 257
Saviour, every time that his facrament is celebrated.
And I dare fay they are the firft that ever put this affront
upon the deity.
What fhall v/e fay to thefe things ? I dare appeal to
the moil rude barbarian in the world, whether, accord-
ing to all the reafon he hath, and all the natural prin-
ciples he is acted by, whether it be not as high an in-
jury as he can poflibly offer to God, either to eat and
devour that which he fincerely believes to be God, and
hath juft before worfhipped \ or to worfhip and adore
that for the fupream God Almighty that he thinks he
may the next moment lawfully eat, Either therefore
let the papifls ceafe worfhipping and adoring the facra-
ment, or let them ceafe eating of it. If they will do
both thefe againft fenfe and reafon, againft fcripture,
againft the practice of the firft and beft chriftians, we
have nothing to fay to them when they would per-
fuade us to become catholics, but what a mahometan
laid long ago : If there be no other catholic chriftian
religion but this, it is better for us to continue pagans,
or heretics, or what you will. Cum chriftiani ado-
rant quod comedunt (faid that Arabian Averroes) fit
anima mea cum pbilofophis. Dionyf. Carthuf. in 4. dill.
10. art. 1. If there be no catholics, no chriftians, but
* thofe who will adore that which they eat, it is better
€ for us to be of the religion of the philofophers.'
But to all this charge of idolatry in the matter of
the adoration of the hoft, the Roman- catholics think
it a fumcient anfwer to fay this : They do not worfhip
any thing, nor pretend to worfhip any thing in the fa-
crament but Jefus Chrift, the Saviour of the world y
who, as being God-man, is a true and proper object
of the higheft worfhip. Do we think they would
give adoration to the hoft, if they thought it was no-
thing
2 $8 Concerning the adoration of the Rojl.
thing but a piece of bread? No, they would abhor it as
much as we. Butbeing that they are convinced that Jefus
Chrift is there under the form of bread, and that after the>
wordsof confecration faid there is no bread left, but the
fubftance of it is turned into the fubflance of the body of
Chrift, they think it not only lawful, but their duty to give
divine worfhip to JefusChrift thus invifiblyprefent.
This is the fum of what they fav for themfelves.
j j
And I think they fay nothing but what is true. They
would not perform adoration to the holt, but that
they verily believe it is the real body of jefus Chrift,
and not a mere wafer, as we call it. And I think like-
wife, that if it was certain and evident that ChrifVs
real body, together with his foul and divinity, as they
phrafe it j that is to fay, the whole Chrift, God and
man, was prefent at the table, under the form of a
wafer, they ought to worfliip him as fuch.
But then, having granted this, it makes nothing
to their purpofe ; this doth not excufe them from the
guilt of idolatry, as we charge it upon : For we have
thefe two things to urge them with :
Firft of all5 by their own confeflion, all that can ren-
der the worfhip of the hoft lawful, or fo much as ex-
cufable, is, the tranfubftantiation that is made of the
bread into the body of Chrift. But now, tho' the
doctrine of tranfubftantiation fbould prove true, yet, for
all this, they are not certain that every time they give
adoration to the hoft, they are free from idolatry.
Butfecondly, if tranfubftantiation be not true, but
the bread they worfhip be ftill bread, then they are
as much idolaters as ever the pagans were.
1. Firft of all, tho' the doctrine of tranfubftantia-
tion mould be true, yet they are not certain that every
time they worfhip the hoft, they are free from idolatry.
My
Concerning the adoration of the Ho/}. 259
My argument is this : The doctrine of tranfubftan-
tiation may be true, and yet the bread and wine may
not, in every facrament, be turned into the body and
blood of Chrift. When they are not fo turned, they
who worfhip them, worfhip a mere creature, and con-
fequently are guilty of idolatry 3 but when they are,
and when they are not fo turned, no man living can
certainly know : For you are to understand, that ac-
cording to the Romifh doctrine, the bread and wine
are never tranfubfrantiated, but by a due confecration-,
Now, to the making a due confecration, there are re-
quired three things ; * That the words of the confe-
1 cration be right fpcken j that he who fpeaks them
* be a lawful prieft ; and, hMy, that the prieft fpeak
1 the words with intention and meaning to make the
c body of Chrift of the bread/ If any one of thefe
three requifites be wanting, there is no confecration ;
and if no confecration, no tranfubftantiation 5 and if
no tranfubftantiation, no body of Chrift $ and if no
body of Chrift, then what is wormipped is no more
than a piece of bread \ and confequently the worfhip
that is given to it is idolatrous.
Now I will appeal to any man, whether he can at
any time, much lefs at all times when he is prefent
at mafs, and worfhips the boft ; whether, I fay, he
can be afiured that the confecration is performed with
all thefe three requifites ? Can he be allured that the
prieft fpeaks the words right ? It is irnpoftibJe for him5
becaufe he cannot hear them pronounced ; for, by the
laws of that church, the prieft is to fpeak the words
in a low voice ; fo that the ftanders-by cannot di-
ftinctly apprehend him. Can he be afiured, in the
fecond place, that the man who confecrates is a true
prieft ? Before he be certain of this3 he mull kno\*r
an
*6o Concerning the adoration of the Hoft.
an hundred things, which it is impoffible for him to
know ; as for inftance, that he was lawfully baptifed,
that is to fay, with the right form of baptifm, and
with an intention to be baptifed : As alfo, that he had
his orders from a true bifhop, and that that bifhop ob-
ferved the effential form of ordination, and did intend
likewife to make him a prieft -3 and to make this bifhop
a true bifhop, he muft likewife have been baptifed,
and ordained with a due form, and with due intention,
and by him that had due power :. And, to know him
that did it to have due power, the fame qucftion muft
be afked concerning thofe that ordained him ; and fo
backward, even up to the apoftles times. But then,
in the third place, for the intention of the prieft that
confecrates the facrament, how can any man be a£-
iured of that ? Suppofe the prieft to be an atheift, or
an infidel, as there have been many ? Suppofe the
prieft himfelf do not believe tranfubftantiation, as there
have been feverai come over to us, who have declared
that even while they continued in that communion,
they did not believe it j if either of thefe cafes happen,
how is it poiTible that the prieft can fincerely mean,
- or intend to make the true real body of Chrift, when
he fpeaks the words of confecration ?
Thefe now being the conditions that are required
to the makino- a tranfubftantiation of the bread and
wine ; and thefe conditions no man living being able
to afcertain himfelf, whether the prieft hath them or
no, it remains, that it is impoiTible for any man, at
any time to know, whether, at the facrament, he
worfhippeth Chrift Jefus, or a piece of bread ; tho*
yet, in the main, the doctrine of tranfubftantiation
be true. Methinks, if there was no other confidera-
tion but this, it ought to abate the zeal of the Roman-
catholics
Ccneernivg the adoration of the Heft. 261
catholics for their adoration of the hoft, fince, even ac-
cording to their own principles, they cannot be certain
that they do not commit idolatry every time they prac-
tice it.
2. Butfecondly, all this is upon fuppofition of the truth
of the doctrine of tranfubftantiation. But now if tran-
fubftantiation mould prove a mere fiction ; if the bread
and wine in the facrament, notwithstanding the moft au-
thentic confecration, mould Mill continue mere bread and
wine, and the body of Chrift frill continue in heaven, at
the right hand of God, and not come down hither at allj
what will become of the Roman-catholics then ? If
this fhould be true, are they not idolaters, with a wit-
nefs r Do they not, in this cafe, give divine worfhip
to a mere creature ? And a contemptible creature too ?
Certainly thev do ; and, according to the notion that
the fcripture gives of idolatry, and that hath hitherto
palled in the church, they are idolaters for fo doing :
Nor is it we only that fay fo, but feveral of the papifts
themfelves have acknowledged as much. I will sive
you an inftance in Cofter, one of the Jefuits, who af-
firms, * That if their church be miftaken in the doc-
4 trine of tranfubftantiation, they do, ipfofatto^ ftand
* guilty of fuch a piece of idolatry, as never was be-
' fore feen or known in the world.' cc For the er-
*' rors of fchofe (fays he) were more tolerable, who
M worfnippea ibme golden or filver ftatue, or feme
" image of any other materials, for their god, as the
" heathens worfhipped their gods; or a red cloth hung
" upon the top of a fpear, as is reported of the Lap-
rt landers ; or ibme live animal, as of old the Egyptians
<c did ; than of thofe who worfhip a bit of bread, as
c< hitherto the chriftians have cone all ever the world
" for fo many years, if the doctrine of tranfubftantia-
" don
2.6 z Concerning the adoration of the Hoft.
€i tion be not true." So that it feems, by the cor-
feilion of papifts themfelves, if the doctrine of tran-
fubftantiation be not true, they are very great idola-
ters. But, this being granted, we will make bold
to add a fecond proportion : We are as certain, as
we can be of anything, that the doctrine of tranfub-
ilantiation is not, cannot be true 5 fince it is againft
all evidence of fenfe and reafon. And now let any-
one that will, from thefe two proportions, make the
conclufion.
But, I mull needs fay, there is a more plaufible apo-
logy to be made for the Roman-catholics in this mat-
ter ; and I will not be fo unjuft to them as to pafs it
by in filence : It is this : <* They, indeed, do believe
*' tranfubftantiation ; that is, that the body of Chrift
*c is indeed prefent in the facrament, inilead of the
<c fubftance of the bread ; and, upon that account^
€< they give divine worfhip to it. But, fuppofe they
65 were miftaken in their belief, which they hope they
<c are not ; their good meaning and intention would
5C excufe them from the crime of idolatry : They in-
<c tend no worfhip but to Jefus, who is a due object of
" their adoration. If, thro' ignorance, they give
C€ that worfhip to a creature, thinking it to be Chrift
ce Jefus ; it is true, they are miftaken ; but they are
%i no more idolaters upon account of that miftake,
" than a man would be thought a traitor to his prince,
" that, through ignorance, mould take a courtier for
" the king ; and kneel down, and pay fuch refpecl: to
" that courtier, as were only due to the king."
It is true, this is very plaufibly faid. But I defire
leave briefly to reprefent thefe two things, which will
{hew how inefficient this plea is for the clearing the
Roman-catholics in the matter we are now fpeaking of.
(1)
Concerning the adoration of the tlofi. 263
(1.) Firft of all, this that they fay for the freez-
ing themfelves from idolatry in the mafs-worfhip,
goes upon a perfectly falfe foundation, It fuppof-
eth, that idolatry cannot be committed where a man
is miftaken in the object that he adores. If a man,
intending to worfhip the fupreme God, fhould give di-
vine worfhip to that which is not God, yet thinking
it to be God, this worfhip of his is not idolatrous ; for
tho' he be miftaken in the object, yet his meaning is
ri°"ht and good : This is the ground they proceed upon.
But it is not only falfe, but the direct contrary is true,
There was never any ferious idolatry in the world, but
it was founded upon a miftake 5 no ferious man was
ever fo foolifn as to adore that for the fupreme God,
which he did not believe to be the fupreme God; but
yet if that which he worfhipped was not God, he was
for all his good meaning, counted an idolater. I do
not think, that the Roman-catholics do more ftedfaftly
believe at this day, that the confecrated bread is the
true body of Chrift Jefus, than thoufands, I might fay
millions of pagans did believe of old, that the fun in the
firmament was the fupreme, all- wife, all-powerful, eter*
nal God : But yet this ignorance and miftake of theirs
tlid not fo quit them from blame, but that by all the pen-
- men of holy fcripture, they are charged with grofs ido-
latry in worfhipping the fun as fuch. If their error and
mifapprehenfion did not excufe them, itcanbemuch lefs
imagined howthe belief of tranfubftantiation can excufe
the Roman-catholics: Which will appear more plainly,
after I have reprefented this in the fecond place.
(2.) We cannot deny, but that ignorance and
miftake, fo far as it is innocent, and not contracted by
our own fault, will excufe in all cafes ; snd there-
fore in this cafe of idolatry : But, as this is certain,
that
2^4 Concerning the adoration of the Heft.
that all idolatry doth proceed from miftake and mif-
apprehenfion ; fo it is alfo certain, that that idola-
try will be the leaft excufable, and have the leaft al-
lowances made for it, that hath the feweft temptations
to it, and the moil: arguments of fenfe and reafon
againft it.
And now I will appeal to all the world, whether the
Roman -catholics, that now worfhip a piece of bread,
have not much fewer temptations to that worfhip,
have not more arguments of fenfe and reafon againft
it, and confequently can lefs pretend ignorance and
miftake, and therefore are lefs excufeable than thofe
among the pagans of old that worfhipped the fun. The
pagans, without doubt, had more to fay for the proof
of the fun's being God, than the Roman-catholics
have for the proof that a wafer is God : Befides, they
had no fupernatural revelation of God's will, but were
left wholly to the light of nature ; and if being prompted
by the principles of their education, and the cuftom of
all the world, to worfhip a vifible god, what vifible
being in the world was more likely to be he than the
fun ? But are there are the fame things to be faid for
the Roman-catholics ? No, certainly. They have the
fcripture to diredT: them to the true God ; they have
all their fenfes to tell them that a piece of bread cannot
be he ; they have their reafon to allure them, by the
way of mathematical demonftration, that tranfubftan-
tiation is impoffible; they have twenty arguments from
fcripture to convince them, that the fenfe they put
upon our Saviour's words, this is my body, is not that
he meant, but the quite contrary. Laftly, they have
had means and opportunities enough afforded them for
the convincing them of their error, by the continued
alarms and awakenings the proteftants have given
them,
Concerning the Adoration of the Hoft. 265
them, who, for thefe hundred and fifty years, have
declared and teftified againfl them.
Never therefore let them pretend invincible igno*
ranee ; nor let them fay, that their worfhipping the
bread for Chrift Jefus, thro' a miftake, can be no
worfe interpreted by God, than a loyal fubjecTs pay-
ing his homage to a privy-counfelior inftead of the king
can be interpreted by the king ; for there is nothing
alike in the things. The countryman, who thus mif-
placeth his refpeft, is indeed excufeable; but if he had
lived at court, as long as the Roman-catholics pretend
to have been acquainted with the fcriptures, and to
have made ufe of their reafon, and yet mould conti-
nue his firft compliments ; all-the world wTould count
him either a fool, or a mad-man, or a knave.
But thus much let it fufHce to have fpoken of this
point, and of this text.
Conftder what you have heard^ and the Lord giv$
you underjianding in all things.
Vol. VII. N 3 E R-
SERMON XV.
The fixth chapter of St. John doth not
favour the popifh do&rine of tran-
fubftantiation : And the fenfe of the
church of England, as to the real pre-
fence in the eucharift.
John vi. 53.
Then J ejus faith unto them, verily, I fay unto
you, except ye eat the fiefh of the Son of man,
and drink his bloody ye have no life in you.
; Y defign now, is to explain this text, be-
caufe indeed, it is a text that needs fbme
explication ; and becaufe I am fenfible,
there are feveral perfons to whom it will
be very acceptable to have a clear and fatisfa£tory ac-
count given of it.
For indeed, this is the only text in fcripture, be-
fides thofe words of our Saviour in the institution,
this is my body, that is apt to {tumble thofe of our
com-
The fenfe of the church of England, &oc. iGy
communion in the point of the facrament ; it Teeming
very much to favour the dofl:rine of tranfubftan-
tiation.
Our Saviour here faith, Except ye eat the f.efi of the
Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
And he adds further, who fa eateth my flefi, and drinketh
my blood, hath eternal life ; and I will raife him up at
the lafl day. For my flefi is meat indeed, and my blood,
is drink indeed.
This is the whole pafTage. What now (fays the
controverfers of the Roman church) can be more evi-
dently plain, than that in the facrament of the Lord's.
fupper, the very true flefh of Chrift is eaten, and his
blood drunk, even in the moil ftri£t literal lenie ?
But what if it can be made to appear, that the
directly contrary is evidently plain, viz. That the
words are fo far from admitting fuch a fenfe, as they
now fpeak of, that they mud, of neceflity, be inter-
preted of a fpiritual eating and drinking by faith, as we
proteftants contend for ? I will not deny, but that our
Saviour, in thefe pafiages, might poflibly make fome
allufion to the facrament, which he afterwards infti-
tuted ; wherein, under the fymbols of the bread and
wine, he did then, and dothftill, exhibit to all worthy
receivers his body and blood in a fpiritual fenfe ; that
is, the benefits of his body broken, and his blood fried
upon the crofs. But this we fay, that the eating and
drinking of Chriil's body and blood, here mentioned,
is not primarily to be underftood of receiving the fa-
crament; much lefs to be confined to it: For chriiKans
do truly eat and drink of Chrift's body and blood, as it
is here fpoken of, by believing in him, and being
united to him by the vital communications of his Holy
spirit.
N 2 But
268 The fenfe of the church of England \
But then further : If thefe words of our Saviour
{hould be granted wholly to refpect our eating and
drinking in the facrament, yet it is impoffible they
mould be underftood in that grofs literal fenfe that the
papifts would obtrude upon us, viz. That in the fa-
crament of the eucharift we do eat the very real na-
tural body of Chrift, and drink his blood, and not
bread and wine, as our fenfes would perfuade us.
In foeakin^; to this text, I will obferve this me-
thod :
Firft, I fhall refcue it from the Romifn glofTes, and
fhew, that it cannot poflibly be interpreted any way
in favour of tranfubftantiation.
Secondly, I fhall give a clear and intelligible ac-
count of the true meaning of it : and alfo mew, as
far as I am able to' judge, in what (enk the church
of England doth own the real prefence of Chrift's^bb-
dy and blood in the holy facrament.
Thefe points do deferve the ferious confideration of
all the honeft members of our church. .,
I. Firft of all, againft the papifts, fl am to fhew,
That there is no foundation for their doctrine of tran-
fubftantiation from this fpeech of our Saviour's, but
rather, confidering what spes before, and what fol-
lows after, there is enough in this very text, wholly
t-o overthrow that doctrine.
Now to make good this, I offer thefe following
particulars :
i. Firft, It is fomething to our purpofe, and ought
at leaft to be taken notice of, that this text is by fome
of the moft learned papifts themfelves, fo far from
beino- urged as an argument for tranfubftantiation,
that they acknowledge, nay contend, that it doth not
refpeit the facrament at all. Several men of very
great
as to the real Prefence in the Each drift. 26 9
great name among them have gone this way. Car-
dinal Cajetan, upon the place, gives exactly the fame
glofs that the generality of the proteftants do. To
eat, faith he, the flefh of Chri/?y and to drink hh blood,
is faith in the death of fefus Chrift : fo that the fenfe
is this ; If ye ufe ?iot the death of the Son of God as
meat and drink , ye have not the life of the Spirit in yon,
And he afterwards expreilv denies that thefe words
are to be understood of eating and drinking- in the fa-
crament. In this the cardinal follows St. Auguftin,
and others of the fathers : and he is herein followed
by feveral of his own party : but I {hall not trouble
you with their names.
2. Secondly, It will be hard to interpret thefe words
of eating and drinking Chrift's flefh and blood, in the
popifh fenfe, upon this account : Chrift here fpeaks
of fuch an eating; his flefh and drinking his blood, as
was actually at that time necefiary to every man's fair
vation. Except ye eat my. flefh, and drink my blccd^
ye have no life in you. This plainly proves that it
was not only of obligation to all, but of abfolute ne-
cefHty to all that heard our Saviour, even then to eat;
his flefh, and drink his blood. But the facrament of
the communion was not at that time inftituted, (but
at lead a year after) nor could the apoftles, or any
then prefent, have the leaft knowledge or intimation
of fuch an inflltution. Either therefore the apoftles
at that time had no life in them, but were in a ftate
of condemnation, or they eat the flefh of Chrift and
drank his blood, even then, when there was no facra-
ment in ufe ; and confequently could not eat and
drink it in the grofs literal {Qn(e they would have.
3. But thirdly, though we fhould fuppofe a pnolep-
fis or anticipation in thefe words, that is, that though
N 3 Chrift
270 Ti?e fenfe of the church of England \
Chrift exprefled himfelf in the prefent time, yet he
meant in the future, after that the facrament mould
be inftituted ; yet admitting this, it would be very
hard fo to reflrain the eating of ' Chrifl' 's flejh and drink-
ing his bloody to -eating and drinking in the facrament,
as to deny or exclude all other means of doing it. For
if we are ilrietly to expound thefe words of eating and
drinking in the facrament, what will become of thofe
who never had opportunity to partake of Chrift's bo-
dy and blood in fuch way r What will become of all
baptized infants that die before they come to years of
difcretioni Kay, what will become of all perfons
grown up, who are cut off by death before ever they
come to the Lord's table, as God knows there are
abundance in thefe days } Why, if thefe words be to
be underftood only of the facrament, all fuch have no
life in them, but are in a ftate of death and condem-
nation, notwithftanding their baptifm. It is true this
'-aoi's, asabfurd as it is, made fuch imprefiions upon
iome churches in former ages, that they thought it as
neceilary to give the communion to fucking children3
as to baptize them. But the church of Rome itfelf is
too wife, at this day, to retain any fuch practice a-
morig them. And yet, if their expofition of the text
be true, I know not how this practice can be denied
to be neceffary.
4.. But fourthly. Let us take our Saviour's words
in a literal feme, which is the thing they would have
us do : vet this will do no fervice to their caufe, but
rather diherve it. Their doctrine is, That in the fa-
crament, the elements of bread and wine, after the
words of confecration, are turned into the very body
and blood of Chrift ; this they exprefs by the term
of tranfubftantiation. But now our Saviour's words
in
as to the real Pre fence in the Eucharift. 271
in this chapter, if taken literally, will rather prove,
that the body and blood of Chrift are turned into bread
and wine, than that bread and wine are turned into
the body and blood of Chrift. Our Saviour in the
forty eighth verfeofthis chapter, fays, I a?nihe bread
of life : and, within three verfes after, he again
repeats the expreflion, I am the living bread that
came dozvn from heaven ; then in the next he tells
them, that they muft eat his fiejh and drink his blood.
How now are v/e to understand this ? Why, he him-
klf explains himfelf fuitably to what he had faid be-
fore in the verfe following, and gives a reafon of this
ftrange command of his : For^ faith he, myflejh is meat
indeed^ and my blood is drink indeed. Now, if there
be any force at all in this pafTage, as indeed it is the
moft forcible of all the reft, then the words will much
rather prove, that Chrift's fiefh is turned into meat ->
that is, into that bread he was before fpeaking of,
which is a known, common food for mankind, and
anfwers to the manna in the wildernefs ; upon occa-
lion of which, all this difcourfe begun : I fay, the
words will much more naturally prove this, than that
the bread is turned into Chrift's body. There is fome
colour, from the literal found of the words, to make
the former interpretation ; but no colour in the world
for the latter, but rather directly the contrary.
5. But then fifthly, Let us take no advantage of
this ; let us allow the papifts to interpret the text of
eating Chrift's body, and drinking his blood, in that
very literal fenfe they defire ; but then they will allow
us to interpret Chrift's former words, of his being
bread m the fame literal fenfe aifo. If they do, as in
reafon they muft do, then let us fee what will come
of it. According to this hypothecs, we muft acknow-
N 4 !edge3
272 The fenfe cf the church of England \
ledge, with them, that in the facrament we eat Chrift's
very body, and drink his blood ; we eat and drink
Chrift himfelf : But then they muft acknowledge, with
us, that Chrift is true bread (for that the literal fenfe of
his expreffions doth as necefTarily require as in the for-
mer cafe;) and therefore tho' we eat Chrift's body in
the facrament, yet we eat true bread alfo. Now,
how we can eat Chrift's very body, and eat true bread
at the fame time, let them that are concern'd anfwer
it : But I am fure no anfwer can be given, but what
will overthrow tranfubftantiation \ for that doctrine
will not allow us to believe that we eat Chrift's very
body and bread at the fame time ; but, on the con-
trary, it lays it down as an article of faith, That,
after the bread is made Chrift's body, it is no longer
bread, but the appearance of it.
6. Sixthly, There is this other thing in the text fit
to be taken notice of, which they will hardly be able
to come off from. Let us interpret this faying of our
Saviour, of the bread and wine in the facrament, and
grant, that the one is really turned into Chrift's body,
and the other into his blood j let us, I fay, admit
this 3 but what will then follow ? Why this ; In what
a miferable condition, upon this fuppofition, are all
lay-people among them, that are never allowed the
neceffary means of obtaining eternal life, that are
here required by our Saviour ? Our Saviour fays ex-
prefly, Except ye eat the fiejh of the Son of man, and
drink his bloody ye have no life in you. The laity now,
among the papifts, it muft be confefs'd, do eat the
flefh of Chrift in the facrament; but I do afk, whe-
ther they do drink his blood ? If they do not, then
they want one half of the qualification that is required
of them, in order to falvation ; For Chrift hath made
the
as to the real Prefence in the Eucharift, 273
the blood as necefiary as the flefh ; he doth not fay,
except ye eat my fleflo^ or drink my bloody ye have no life
in you -, but, except ye eat my fiefo^ and drink ?ny blood.
Both of them are certainly necefTary, if the one be fo ;
and yet every body knows, that the cup of the fa-
crament is wholly denied to the lay-people in the
popifh communion.
Their doclxine of concomitancy, which they have
invented, as to this matter, will not in the leaf!: help
them to get off from this difficulty : The doclrine of
concomitancy is this : They teach that the blood of
Chrifl:, in the facrament, is fo eflentially united with
the body, that whofoever communicates but in one
element, whether it be bread or wine, doth, upon ac-
count of that union, really partake of both body and
blood. But now, tho' this fhift might ferve fome
turn, as to the evading the words of inftitution (tho*
there is no colour in the earth for it) yet, as to this
text, it cannot do them the fame fervice. Chrifr. here
fays exprefly, if they do not both eat his flefh, and
drink his blood, they have no life in them. They
will allow7 no other interpretation of thefe words but
this, that the flefh of Chrifl, here fpoken of, is that
which formerly was the bread in the facrament ; and
the blood of Chrifl is that which formerly was the wine,
in the facrament. Admitting now this fenfe to be true^
I appeal to every one, whether it be not as necellary
for every chriffian to partake of the cup, that is, of
the blood, as it is to partake of the bread, that is,
the body; and confequently, what will become of
the people that are denied the cup ?
7. But feventhly, and lailly, There is one thing fur-
ther to be taken notice of in this text, that, if all
hitherto faid did fignify nothing , would alone demon-
N 5 ftratively
274 ^'he fetife of the church of England \
ftratively overthrow the doclrine of tranfubftantiation,
fo far as it is grounded upon that text. As our Savi-
our faith, that, Except ye eat the flejh of the Son of
Man, and drink his bloody ye have no life in you ; fo
he goes further, in the next verfe, and faith thus :
Whofo eaieth my flejh, and drinketh my bloody hath eter->
nal life, and I vjill raife hi?n up at the laji day. The
Romanifts now fay, that this flefh is that which is
eaten in the facrament of the eucharift, by every com-
municant. The bread and wine, by the prieft's words,
are tranfubftantiated into the body fand blood of
Chrift ; and this body and blood every communicant
doth receive and eat. What now muft we fay ? Doth
every one that partakes of the facrament, partake of
eternal life, and will Chrift raife him up at the lad day ?
No, without doubt, a great many receive unworthily ;
and fhall be fo far from receiving benefit by their com-
munion, that it will increafe their condemnation. Here
now is the point : Chrift fays, Whofoever eateth hisfe/h,
and drinks his blood, hath eternal life, and he will raife
him up at the lafl day. The church of Rome not on-
ly confeiTeth, but contendeth eameftly, that every ]
perfon who receives the facrament, eats Chrift' s flefh,
and drinks his blood (for the prieft, of the elements,
hath made both the body and the blood). The natural
^onclufion from hence is, that every man that receives
the facrament {hall have eternal life : But is this a
true conclufion ? Or will they of the church of Rome
iband to it ? I believe they will not; for, if St. Paul
.tnay be believed, a man, in the facrament, may eat
and drink damnation to himfelf as well as life to him-
ielf. It is moft evident therefore, even to demonltra-
tkon, that which is eaten and drunk in the facrament,
- is not always that body and blood of Chrift, which
8 he
as to the real Pre fence in the Eucharift. 275
he fpeaks of in the text ; and confequently, very far
is this text from proving tranfubftantiation 5 which
was the thing to be made out.
II. And now, having done this, I come, in the fe-
cond place, to give fuch an account of the text, as
will avoid all the abfurdities that I have now men-
tion'd, which the popifh interpretation is obnoxious
to j and will fuit and cohere very well with all the
pafTages in this difcourfe of our Saviour's.
And here I defire, in the firft place, it may be taken
notice of, that our Saviour himfelf # hath given us a
key for the interpreting this text, and all the pafTages
that relate to it : So that we do not make an expofi-
tion to ferve our own caufe, but go exactly by fuch
rules as our Lord himfelf hath prefcrib'd for the inter-
preting his words. This is certain, that whatever
glofs the Romanifts make upon the text, Chrift hath,
in exprefs words, forewarned us, that we fhould not
take thefe his fayings in a grofs literal fenfe, but in a
myftical and fpiritual one.
The paiTage is remarkable. In the fixtfeth verfe
of this chapter it is told us, That many of his dif-
ciples, when they heard this fevere command of eat-
ing Chrift's fiefh, and drinking his blood (taking the
words in a carnal fenfe, as the papifts now do) They
zvere much offended ', and faid, This is a hard faying,
who can hear it f Noiv (as we have it in the next
verfe) when fefus knew this in himfelf that his difciples
murmured at it, hejaid unto them, doth this offend you ?
What and if Jhe fi all fee the Son of man afcend where
he was before f In thefe words, our Saviour feems to
chide their dulnefs, and to endeavour to rectify their
miftake about what he had fpoken : This is his fenfe ;
44 You are offended at me for telling you, that you
" mull
2j6 The fenfe of the church of England,
* muir. eat the fiefh of the Son of man, and drink his
f blood : This you take in a grofs literal fenfe ; but
c fure you will be convinced, that I have no fuch
c meaning, when you fee this Son of man, with his
' body and blood, vifibly afcend into heaven, from
6 whence he firft came down : Then fure, you will
5 have no fuch carnal imagination of eating my very
4 body, and drinking my blood j for then there will
' be no body to be eaten, nor no blood to be drank ;
8 for both will be in heaven, and not here upon
'earth." And, left this mould not give them light
enough for the underftanding the allegory he had all
along purfued, he yet fpake more plainly to the bufi-
nefs, by adding this further thing : It is, fays he, the
fpirit that qmckeneth, the fiefh profiteth nothing. The
plain fenfe of which words is this : " Tho' you could
" really eat my body or my fiefh in that grofs man-
*c ner that you have taken me in, yet that would do
*c you no good, as to the fpiritual life of your foulsy
*c that I have been all along fpeaking of. In every
" creature that hath life, it is not the fiefh that is
*c chewed by the teeth, that is the fountain or prin-
*c ciple of life in that creature, but the foul or the
*f fpirit that animates that body : and fo it is as to the
" fpiritual life of the foul. It is not my natural fiefh,
«« tho' you mould eat it with your mouths, that would
w profit you at all, in order to everlafting life j but it
** is the Spirit of God, my Spirit, that goes along and
« dwells with all true believers and difciples of mine,
*< that muft quicken you at the Jaft day ; muft both
" produce the fpiritual life in you in this world, and
*' continue and perfect that life in eternal glory."
And then he thus concludes : The words that I [peak
unto you they are fpirit} and they are life '> that is, the
words
as to the real Pre feme in the Eucbarijt. 277
words that 1 have now fpoken concerning eating of
my flefh, are to be underftood in a fpiritual fenfe, or
of a fpiritual eating and drinking ; and by that means,
and that only, a true eternal life is to be obtain'd.
Well now, whether (hall we believe the Romaniffe,
who would interpret our Saviour's words carnally, or
our Saviour himfelf, who faith, that he fpeaks them
in a fpiritual fenfe ; and affirms, that the carnal fenfe,
if it was practicable, would really do men no good ?
Well, but what is this fpiritual fenfe of eating Chrift'*
flefh, and drinking his blood, that is here intended ?
To this I anfwer plainly, according to all the light
that the contexts afford in this matter ; To eat ChrijVs
Jlejhi and to drink his blood (as our Saviour fpeaks of
it in this chapter) is no more than to come to him, or
to believe in him : for, by both thefe phrafes, this
term of eating and drinking Chrift's flefh and blood,
is expounded in this very chapter. Chrifr. faith, in
the fortieth verfe of this chapter, This is the will of
him thatfent me, that every one that believeth on the Son
may have everlajling life, and I will raife him up at
the laft day. In the forty-fourth verfe he fays, No man
can come unto me, except my Father draw him, and I
will raife him up at the lajl day. In the fifty-fourth
verfe he faith, Whofo eateth my fiejh, and drinketh my
blood, hath everlajling life, and I will raife him up at
the lajl day. So that the very fame promife, in the
fame words, being made in the fame difcourfe to all
that believe in Chrift, to all that come to him, to all
that eat his fiefn, and drink his blood-, it is an undeni-
able argument, that both coming to Chrift, and be"
■lieving on hi?n, and eating and drinking his flejh and
blood,, are but feveral expreffions of the fame thing.
If there be any difference in the phrafes, it is this,.
that
278 The fenfe of the church of England^
that the eating ChrifVs flejh, and drinking his bloody
doth more particularly refer to his death, than the o-
ther two phrafes do.
This, in the general : But, to fpeak more plainly,
and to give a more particular account from the con-
text:
Chrift's whole buiinefs, in this chapter, doth briefly
lie here. The men that now followed Jefus, were
thofe who had partaken of a late miracle of his,
whereby he had fed fome thoufands with a few loaves
and fifh. Jefus takes occafion from this to tell them,
That they did not feek him for the miracles fake, but
for the loaves they had Jhared of ver. 26. And from
thence he takes occaiion, as it was his ufual manner,
to exhort, Not to labour for the meat that perijheth,
but for that which endureth to everlafing life, ver. 27.
They afk him, How they might do that, ver. 28. He
anfwers them directly, the way was, To believe in him,
ver. 29. They afk him, Wloat fign he would give,
or what miracle he would, work, that they might believe
hi him, ver. 30. And they urge him to do fuch a
thing as Mofes did (ver. 31.) that is. to give them
bread from heaven, ver. 32. Upon this occafion, he
begins and compares himfelf with that manna which
Mofes gave the Israelites ; nay, fhews how much he
excels that, particularly in this, that that only con-
tinued a fhort temporal life, but bv believing; on him,
they might get an eternal life, ver. 49, 50. They
murmur at this, ver. 41. He tells them again confi-
dently, He that believeth in me hath everlafing life \ I
am that bread of life, (ver. 47, 48.) viz. that fpiri-
tual food which will bring men to it. And, left they
fhould be mlftaken what kind of bread he meant,
he explains himfelf more fully, The bread faith he,
(ver.
Li
as to the real Prefence in the Eucbarijl. 279
(ver. 51.) is myflejh^ which I will give for the life of
the world \ that is to fay, I will lay down my life for
the falvation of mankind ; and this death of mine
fhall be life to others ; and this flefh of mine thus cru-
cified, fhall be meat to all believers ; fuch meat as
fhall nourifh them up to everlafting life ; and there-
fore whofoever eats this flefh of mine thus offer'd, and
drinks this blood of mine thus fhed, fhall have ever-
lafting life ; and I will raife him up at the laft day.
Which is the fame thing as if he had faid, " Who-
*< ever doth heartily believe in me, and become my
*' difciple, and frames his manners according to my
u commandments, and is fo far from being fcanda-
" lized at my death, that (till he adheres to my faith,
" and continues my follower ; to fuch an one, this
death of mine will procure eternal life, by the
means of my Holy Spirit which fhall raife him up
" at the laft day. But on the other hand, unlefs a
u man do believe in me, and become my difciple,
*' and even turn my death and pailion to good nourifh-
cc ment (how fcandalous and ignominious foever it
<c be) by a lively faith, fo as that he fhall not upon
ct that account forfake me, nor be offended at my
" doctrine, but ftill perfevere in my faith and in my
'* fervice, I fay, except a man doth this, he hath no
u life in him, nor will I raife him up at the laft day."
This in fhort, fo far as we can gather from the
whole chapter, and by comparing one paffage with
another, is the true genuine fenfe of our Saviour's
words we are new infifting on.
Thus you fee, that the text is not to be interpreted
in a grofs carnal fenfe, as if it was neceflay to falva-
tion, that every one fhould with his mouth eat the
natural flefh of Chrift3 or drink his blood. It is
enough
2 So The fs fife of the church of England,
enough if he do truly believe in Jefus Chrift ; that he
be his difciple ; that he fo believe his death, as to be
conformable to it, by his dying to fin, and living to
righteoufnefs. This is truly feeding on Chrift's body
and his blood.
And tho' we do not deny that one principal in-
ftance of eating Chrift's flefh, and drinking Chrift's
blood, be by the means of the facrament, yet it is by
no means to be confined to that only. Every true be-
liever that lives according to his belief, doth in every
acl: of religion he performs, eat the flefh of Chrift
and drink his blood, for he exercifeth acts of faith
and obedience to him, and that is the true eating and
drinking here mentioned.
And this is that which St. Auguftin fo often fpeaks
of: How, fays he, Jhall I fend up my hands to heaven
to take hold of Chrift fitting there ? Send thy faith,
end thou haft hold of him. Why prepareft thou thy
teeth and thy belly ? Believe, and thou haft eaten : For
this is to eat the living bread. He that believeth in
Chrift^ eateth Chrift ; he is inviftbly fed, becaufe he is
inviftbly regenerated.
1 might produce many more teftimonies of the fa-
thers to prove the orthodoxy of this proteftant expo-
fition, if it were either needful or convenient.
But what then ? Do not we in the facrament truly
partake of the body and blood of Chrift ? God for-
bid that any one mould deny it. There is none that
underftands any thing of the facrament, but muft
acknowledge, that therein, to all worthy receivers,
the body and blood of Chrift is both given, and like-
wife received by them. This is the fenfe of the church
of England, when fhe doth fo often declare, that {lie
$wns the real prefence of Chrift's body and blood, to
7 all.
as to the real Prefence in the Eucharift. 2 St-
all that worthily receive the facrament : Which being
a point about which Co much duft hath been lately
raifed, it will not be amifs if I dwell a little upon
this matter.
There are fome that would bear us in hand, that
whatever exceptions we make againft the doctrine of
tranfubfcantiation, yet in truth the doctrine of the
church of England, as to the facrament, if it be not
the fame with that, yet is every way as myfterious,
and may be charged with many difficulties and ab-
furdities.
The church of England, fay they, doth exprefly
ewn and profefs the real prefence of Chrifl's body and
blood to all worthy receivers: and this very thing
may be loaded with as many difficulties, as the other
doctrine.
To this we anfwer : It can be loaded with no other
difficulty at all, but is a plain and intelligible thing,
as the church of England explains it. We do indeed
Qwn, that Chrifr. is really prefent in the facrament,
to all worthy receivers ; and in our communion-office
we pray God to grant that we may eat the Jlejh of his
dear Son, and drink his blood; and in the prayer of
confecration, we befeech him to grants that we receiv-
ing thefe his creatures of bread and xvine, may be par-
takers of Chrifl's rrioji bleffed body and blood. All this
we ov/n, and it is very neceflary we mould ; lince
the apoitle hath in exprefs terms faid the very fame
thing, telling us, That the bread we break is the com-
munion of Chrifl's body ; and the cup of bleffing which
we drink, is the communion of his blood, 1 Cor. x. 10.
Now fince this was the lan°;uao;e both of Chrifl' and
his apoflles, about the holy facrament, and upon that
account the church, in all ages, hath retained thofe
terms.
2 82 <? he fenfe of the church of Engl and %
terms and expreflions, there was very good reafon
we, in our public liturgy, fhould retain them like-
wife.
But now all the queftion lies here, In what fenfe
thefe terms, or phrafes, or expreflions, are to be under-
ftood ? They of the other communion contend, that
the eating Chrift's flefh, or the partaking of his body
and blood, is to be underftood in a ftri£r., literal,
proper fenfe. We fay, that the literal fenfe is im-
poilible, becaufe Chrift, could not give away his body
to the apoftles, while he was alive, with his own
hands ; much lefs could he give it to them broken
and crucified before he was crucified. And therefore
thefe expreilions are to be underftood in a fpiritual,
myftical fenfe ; fuch a fenfe as the apoftles muft be
fuppofed to underftand them in, when they received
Chrift's body and blood from the hand of our Saviour
himfelf. They fay, that the fubflance of bread and
wine is changed into the fubflance of Chrift's bodv and
blood i fo that in the facrarnent every communicant,
good and bad, doth not eat bread, but the very flefh,
of Chrift. Our church faith, That the natural body
and blood of our Saviour are in heaven^ and not here \
and therefore our giving , eatings taking the body of
Chrift is only after an heavenly and fpiritual manner ,
and the means whereby they are received and eaten is
faith. Thefe are the very words of the rubric of our
liturgy, and of our church-articles. You fee here is
a wide difference between us and them. The plain
meaning of our church is this : In the holy com-
munion, as in the other facrarnent of baptifm, there
is the Jigtiy and the thing Jignified \ the outward part *
cr fign of the Lord's fupper is the bread and wine ;
the inward part3 or the thing Jignified is the body and
blood
as to the real Prefence in the Eucharift. 283
blood of Chrift. Now as our bodies^ are made partakers
of the bread and wine, for their flrengthening and re-
frejhment ; fo (if we receive them worthily) our fouls
are made partakers of the body and blood of Chrijl^ to
their flrengthening and refrejhmcnt, Thefe are the
words of our church-catechifm. But then this body
and blood of Chrift are to be underftood in fuch a
fenfe, as a foul can be fuppofed to feed upon a body ;
or to receive ftrength and nourishment by feeding up-
on it : But now the body of Chrift can be no other-
wife a food for the ftrengthning and refrefhing our
fouls, than only as the fpiritual benefits of that body
and blood, that is to fay, the virtue and effects of
ChriiVs facrificeupon thecrofs, are communicated to
it ; nor is the foul capable of receiving thofe benefits
otherwife than by faith. So that the body and blood
of Chrift, in the fenfe of our church, are only the
benefits of Chrift's paiiion, that is to fay, the pardon
of fin, and the grace of the Holy Spirit, and a nearer
union with Chrift ; and our eating and drinking of
that body and blood, is our being made partakers of
thofe benefits ; and the mouth, whereby we thus eat
and drink, that is, the means whereby we are made
partakers of thofe benefits, is our true and lively
faith.
This is plainly the fenfe of our church in this mat-
ter. It is certain, fhe cannot mean the body of Chrift,
in any other fenfe than what we have now' declar'd,
becaufe {he exprefly affirms, That Chrift hath but one
body, and that body is now in heaven^ and not here ;
and fhe declares further, That that body which we
eaty is for the nourifhment of our fouls 9 (which the bo-
dy of Chrift, in a proper literal fenfe, tho' it were
here prefent, could not contribute any thing to.) And
iaftly,
2 84 The fenfe of the church of England
laftly, fhe declares, That the mouth., whereby we par~
take of this body, is faith : which is fuch a mouth as
never was heard of, for the eating a body truly and
properly fo called.
The fum of all this is, That when we talk of the
prefence of Chrift's body in the facrament, or fay,
that, to the worthy receivers, the body and blood of
Chrift. is communicated, we mean no more than this,
That the Holy Spirit of Chrift is prefent at every fuch
ordinance of God ; and that whofoever comes pre-
pared with faith and repentance, and devotion and
charity, that Holy Spirit will not fail to apply to every
fuch communicant the very body and blood of Chrift.
broken and fhed for us, that is, all the virtue, and all
the benefits and effects of Chrift 's facrifice.
So that if any one afk you, whether you own the
body and blood of Chrift to be truly prefent in the
facrament ? your anfwer to this queftion muft be by
another queftion. Afk them what they mean by the
body and blood of Chrift? If by thofe words they
mean the fpiritual prefence of Chrift Jefus, for the
conveying all the benefits and effe£h of his body, that
was crucified, and his blood that was fhed for man-
kind, to all thofe fouls that do pioufly and worthily
commemorate his death by the facrament, in this fenfe
you do, with the church of England, own a real
prefence of Chrift's body and blood to all worthy com-
municants. But if by the body and blood of Chrift,
they mean the fubftance of his body and blood which
was taken of the virgin Mary, and was crucified and
fhed at Jerufalem, and is now at the right hand of
God, in this fenfe, according to the church of Eng-
land, you cannot own any real prefence, but rather a
real abfence : For Chrift hath but one body, and that
body
as to the real Prefence in the Eucharift. 285
body is in heaven^ and not herey it being againft the truth
of his natural body to be in more places than one at the
fame time.
This now is a plain, and clear, and intelligible
account of the matter. And this, I believe, and no
other, is the fenfe of the church of England about the
real prefence, fo far as we can judge by her moft pub-
lic authentic declarations. And this hath been her
fenfe about it ever fince the reformation ; nay, I may
fay it was the doctrine of the church of England, fe-
veral ages before the reformation ; as may appear from
the Saxon homilies yet extant, which were read in our
church here, even before the conqueft.
I might be very large in heaping up the teftimonies
of our divines to this purpofe. But I mall content my-
felf with reciting to you only one pafTage of the moft
learned arch-bifhop Cranmer. Whofe words may
go further than any other man's, for the afcertain-
ing and clearing the fenfe of our church in this matter,
fince he had the principal hand both in compiling our
liturgy and our articles. The paflage I fpeak of, is
in the preface to his book againft bifhop Gardiner.
And I fhall conclude with it.
*' Moreover, (fays he) when I fay, and repeat
M many times in my book, that the body of Chrift is
** prefent in them that worthily receive the facrament,
*c left any man mould miftake my words, and think
" that I mean, that akho' Chrift be not corporally in
" the outward vifible figns, yet he is corporally in the
" perfons that duly receive them ; this is to advertife
" the reader, that I mean no fuch thing. But my
meaning is, that the force, the grace, the virtue,
and benefits of Chrift's body that was crucified for
44 us, and of his blood that was ihed for us, be really
" and
a
a
286 The fenfe of the church of England.
cc and effectually prefent with all them that duly re-
<c ceive the facrament. But all this I understand of
" the fpiritual prefence, of the which he faith, / ivill
« be with you to the end of the world. Mat. xxviii. 20.
"And wherefoever two or three are gathered together
c< in my name, there I am in the midjl of them, Mat.
c< xviii. 20. And he that eateth my flefh^ and drinketh
ct my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, John vi. 56.
ci Nor no more truly is Chrift corporally or really pre-
cc fent in the due adminiftration of the Lord's fupper,
ic than he is in the due adminiftration of baptifm, that
" is to fay, in both fpiritually, by grace. And where-
" foever in the fcripture it is laid that Chrift, God,
<c or the Holy Ghoft is in any man, the fame is to be
*c underftood fpiritually, by grace."
Thefe are the words of that excellent bifhop and
martyr, and there needs nothing to be added to them.
I pray God give us all grace both in the facra?ne?it,
and in all our a£ls of religious worjhip, and in
our whole converfaiionyfo to eat thcfejh of Chrift,
and drink his blood, that %ve may have eternal
life abiding in us, and by his Spirit may be raifed
$ip at the lajl day,
A P-
APPENDIX.
The Letter which occafioned the following
Answer.
To the Reverend Dr. Sharp.
Reverend Sir, March i. 1686-7.
cc TTF you can prove to me, that Chriit hath no in-'
" JL fallible church upon earth, or if you can give
<c me a catalogue of but one man in an age that pro-
<c fefled the fame faith the church of England now
" embraces, from our Saviour's time till now, I will
" promife you to be no Roman-catholic. So begging
" your pardon for giving you this trouble, I take leave
« to fubfcribe myfelf, Sir,
Tour humble Servant,
Ali: Kingesmill.
" P. S, What church holds all the thirty-nine arti-
" cles of the church of England ?
His Answer.
Madam,
IN the bufinefs wherein you have concerned me
with you, you feem to have forgot what is your
part,^and what is mine. You tell me, you were bred
up in the church of England, which church denies the
in-
288 APPENDIX.
infallibility of the Roman church; now, if anyargi*
ments have been offered you, which ftartle you in
that point, and feem to you to prove that Chrift. hath
an infallible church on earth, and that the church of
Rome is that church ; your province is, to acquaint
me with thofe arguments that do thus unfettle you ;
and my part is, to endeavour to give you fatisfaclion
about them : But now, you turn the tables, and re-
quire of me to prove to you, that the church is not
infallible. Thofe that directed you to proceed thus,
know very well, that this-is not fair dealing ; and fince
it is their fide that maintain the affirmative, namely,
that the church of Rome is infallible, they ought to
prove it, and not put it upon us, who deny it, to prove
a negative : So that all the anfwer that I need to re-
turn to this proportion of yours, is, to make another
to your friends ; and that is, that if any of them can
prove to me, that the church of Rome is infallible^
I will not only give my confent that you fhall be a
Roman- catholic, but I will be one myfelf.
As for the next thing you put upon me, viz. To
give you a catalogue of but one man in an age, that
profeiled the fame faith the church of England now
embraces, from our Saviour's time till now. To that
I give you this anfwer, that whenever your friend
will name one man, within the compafs of five hun-
dred years after Chrift, of whom it appears that he
held, in all things, according to the faith of the church
of Rome, as it is now eftablifhed by the council of
Trent, I will, at the fame time, do what you defire
of me.
To the queftion you afk in the poftfcript of your
letter, viz. What church holds all the thirty-nine ar-
ticles of our church, befides the church of England ?
(fo
APPENDIX. 289
(fo I fuppofe you meant to put it) I return another
queftion, as needful for you to be fatisfied In ; and that
is this, What church in the world holds all the defi-
nitions of the council of Trent, befides the church of
Rome, if, indeed, all the parts even of that church
do receive all of them ?
Thefe, Madam, were the anfwers I drew up to
your captious queftions, immediately upon the receipt
of your letter ; and I once thought of fending them
thus, without any further additions, being fure, that
what I here offer to you, is as reafonable as what you
demand ; and it concerns you as much to be fatisfied
by your friends, in thofe things that I propofe to you,
as it concerns you to be fatisfied by me in thofe things
you have propofed to me. But, upon fecond thoughts,
that you might not think that I have a defign to ufe
you, as I perceive your friends do, that is, only to
amufe and blunder you, and not to infbucx you ;
I was refolved to employ my firft leifure in looking
over your paper again, and giving you, as plainly as
I could, my fenfe of it ; and that is the reafon you
flay a day or two longer for my anfwer.
Your firft demand is, to prove to you, that Chrift
has no infallible church upon earth. Madam, tho*
it be not ufual, as I faid, to put people to prove ne-
gatives (the proof always lying on the airirmer's fide,
it being fufficient to fatisfy one, that a thing is not ;
that there is no proof or reafon for the being of it)
yet I (hall, for once, fo far comply with you, as to
offer you fome of my reafons, why I do not believe
that Chrift hath any church upon earth abfolutely,
and in all things infallible, or infallible in that fenfe
in which the Romanifts do ufually attribute infallibi-
lity to their church.
Vol. VII. O And
290 APPENDIX.
And my firft reafon is, that if Chrift had meant
that there fhould be always an infallible church upon
earth, I cannot but believe, that it would have been
fbme-where or other exprefly told us in the New-
teftament, both that there was an infallibility lodged
in the church for ever ; and likewife, in which, of
all the churches in the world, this infallibility was
lodged ; that fo, upon all occafions, chriftians in all
ages, might know where to have recourfe to that in-
fallible church : But now, this not being done iti the
whole New-teftament, neither by our Saviour, nor
by his apoftles ; it is an argument to me, that no
fuch thing was ever intended by them. Your friends
here, muft not think to put us off with, Thou art
Peter, &c. And upon this rock, &c» And if he will
not hear the church, &c. And fuch other texts as thefe;
which, as they have been anfwered a thoufand times i
fo in truth, to any unbiaffed reader, will appear either
not to fpeak at all to the bufinefs of infallibility, or
not to concern any but the apoftles themfelves. In-
deed, I am fo very well allured of the weaknefs of
your fcripture proofs for the Roman church's infalli-
bility, that, I believe, there may as plain texts of -
fcripture be produced for the infallibility of the king,
or for the infallibility of every good man, or for the
infallibility of any two or three chriftians, afTembling
together in the name of Chrift, as there can be pro-
duced for the infallibility of the pope, or of any par-
ticular church.
My fecond reafon, why I do not believe that Chrift
hath any infallible church upon earth, is, becaufe I do
not find that any of the primitive churches ever pre-
tended to any fuch infallibility, no, not the church of
Rome herfelf.
I
APPENDIX. 291
1 do not find that, in the controverfies which arole
in the ancient church about matters of faith, the guides
of the church ever made ufe of this argument of the
church's infallibility for the difquieting and ending of
them ; which yet, had they known of any fuch thing,
had been the propereft and the eafieft means they
could jiave ufed.
I know that the ancient fathers had another me-
thod of confuting heretics and fchifmatics, than by
appealing to the church's infallibility, namely, by
bringing their doctrines to be tried by the ancient
ufages and traditions of the apoftolic churches \ and
efpecially by the divine oracles of the fcriptures, which
they looked upon as the entire and only rule of faith.
I know further, as to the church of Rome, that,
by what appears by the carriage and behaviour of
other churches in the primitive times towards that
church, in matters where they were concerned toge-
ther, it muft be thought impoffible that thofe churches
fhould ever have entertained any opinion, or fo much
as imagination, of the Romifh church's infallibility 5
they making no fcruple, whenever there was occafion,
to oppofe the fenfe of that church as vigoroufly, as
they either did, or could, oppofe any other particular
church that differed from them.
My third reafon, why I do not believe the doctrine
of the church's infallibility, as it is maintained by the
church of Rome, is, becaufe I do not fee any effects
,of this infallibility in the world, or any good that
hath accrued to the church, which may not as well
he afcribed to God's ordinary aiiiftance of every chri-
ftian church, without infallibility as with it.
It is faid that, without an infallible judge, contro-
verfies that arife among chriftians cannot be ended:
O 2 Why,
a92 \A P P E N D I X.
Whv, that very church that pretends to infallibility,
are not yet agreed among themfelves about feveral
points of religion ; nay, this very bufinefs of infalli-
bility, as to the feat of it, where, or in whom it is
lodged, is yet as great a controverfy among them as
any.
It is faid that, without an infallible judge, the fcrip-
tures cannot be expounded ; the fenfe of texts cannot
be afcertained. Why, I would gladly know, what
advantages the church of Rome, that pretends to in-
fallibility, hath in this refpect above other churches
that pretend to none ? Do they underitand the fcrip-
tures better than we, or have they cleared or fettled
the fenfe of but one doubtful text, by the power of
their infallibility, during all the time they have pre-
tended to it ? Let them produce one text, the fenfe of
which is, by this means, afcertained ? I believe they
will not offer at it : They know, as well as we, that
all thofe texts of fcripture, which were difficult and
obfcure at the firft, remain To to this day, for any
thing that their infallible judge has done towards the
clearino- of them. And if the knk of any obfcure
pafiages in thofe holy books, be more cleared J or bet-
ter afcertained to us, than they were formerly; no
thanks for this to an infallible judge, but to fallible
commentators, whofe learning and induffry, through
the bleliin^ of God, have been of great ufe for the j
untvihtf of difficulties of fcripture : Nay, I add this
further, that, of all expontors of holy fcripture that
I know of, the popes themfelves, who are, by fome,
accounted the infallible judges, have been as unlucky
as any ; and fo far have they been from clearing ob-
fcure texts, that they have miferably perverted and
mifapplied the plained, as abundance of inftances
might
APPENDIX. 293
might be given out of their epiftles, which now make
a confiderable part of the canon-law.
My fourth reafon againft any church's infallibility,
and which, I fuppofe, will be a good argument with
you, is this, becaufe I can, as I think, make it appear,
that the church of Rome (which is the only church
in the world, that I know of, which pretends to this
infallibility) hath, herfelf, actually erred in feveral
points of faith ; and if fo, it is impoiTible that ilie
mould always have been infallible. This, I hope, is
a convincing reafon againft. the church of Rome's infal-
libility ; and, provided your friend will fairly anfwer
my three foregoing negative proofs, by mewing that
I have mifreprefented things, as to this matter j and
that it may be proved from fcripture, and from anci-
ent church-authority, and from effects vifible in the
world, that Chriit always hath an infallible church
upon earth ; then I promife to join ifTue with him upon
this laft point, and to make out, that the church of
Rome cannot be that infallible church, becaufe me
hath actually erred.
The reafons of this my aflertion are thefe : If the
fcriptures be infallible, then the church of Rome
hath actually erred, becaufe fhe hath in many in-
ftances, both of doctrine and practice, departed from
the holy fcriptures.
Again : If the church of the primitive ages was
infallible, then the church of Rome hath actually erred,
becaufe the church of Rome now holds doctrines which
the primitive church, nay, and the Roman church it-
felf, difowned and rejected ; and, on the other fide,
the church of Rome now rejects and difowns doctrines
which the primitive church, and the church of Rome
herfelf, in thofe days, owned and believed : So that
O 3 either
•294 APPENDIX.
either the ancient church was not infallible, or the pre-
sent church is not fo ; however, the church of Rome
hath little pretence to it.
Again : If it can be made to appear, that one pope
hath declared himfelf contradictorily to another pope,
in matters of faith ; or, that one council, confirmed
by the pope, hath contradicted another council, con-
firmed by the pope, and that too in matters of faith,
as one of the councils themfelves accounted them ;
then, I fuppofe, you will grant, that the church of
Rome hath actually, at fome time or other, erred ;
the higheft authority in that church maintaining things
contradictory to one another, unlefs you will fay, that
contradictory proportions may both be true : But now
this we are ready to make out, when there is occaMon.
I have dwelt the longer upon this bufinefs of infalli-
bility, becaufe I remember you told me, that this
was the main, if not the only point, ycu defired to
have fome difcourfe about.
As for the other thing in your letter, about one in
an age profeiTmg the faith of the church of England,
how that came to be tacked to the other, you your-
felf beft know ; however, I will give you my anfwer
as briefly as I can to that part of your letter, from
whence you yourfelf maybe able to frame an anfwer
alfo-to the queftion in your poftfcript.
You fay, that if I can give you a catalogue of but
one man in an age that profefTed the fame faith the
church of England now embraceth, from our Saviour's
time till now, you promife you will not be a Roman-
catholic.
Madam, the faith of the church of England, is that
common faith that was once delivered to the faints,
and was put into writing by the apoftles, and other
ia-
APPENDIX. 295
mfpired men, and is fummarily contained In the an-
cient creeds of the church. It is that faith into which
all chriflians, in all ages of the church, were baptifed ;
and which, in ancient times, was thought fuffident
to carry a man to heaven, if he lived according to it.
And laflly, it is that faith which is at this day owned
by the church of Rome herfelf (tho' the hay and flub-
ble they have built upon, the new additions they have
made to it, in the council of Trent, without either au-
thority of fcripture, or apoflolical tradition, are de-
fervedly rejected by us) I fay, this is the faith embraced
by the church of England. And whereas you only
defire a catalogue of one man in an age that profefTed
this faith, we will be more liberal to you, and give you
catalogues of great numbers in every age that lived
and died in this faith ; nay, we are fure that the apo-
ftles, the ancient martyrs and confefFors, nay, and all
holy chriftians, in all ages, profefTed this faith, and
never had any other.
This now, Madam, being the plain (late of the cafe,
I hope you will think yourfelf obliged to continue in
our communion, fince you promife that, if I can but
give you a catalogue of one man in an age, that pro-
fefTed the fame faith.
Why, Madam, I declare to you (and let your
friend make out the contrary if he can) that every
church, and every good chriflian, in every age, from
Chrifl's time till now, hath profefTed the fame faith
the church of England now embraceth \ for all
churches, and all good chriflians, have always pro-
fefTed to believe the doctrines of the holy fcriptures,
and have always profefTed to believe all the articles of
the ancient creeds ; and that, I afTure you, is the faith
of the church of England. And I add this further,
O 4 that
2o6 APPENDIX.
that it is for this very reafon,- that we allow the church
of Rome to be a part of the church of Chrift, and the
members of it capable of falvation; becaufe in that
church, the common faith is ftill profeiTed, even the
faith of the church of England ; tho' yet with fo great
a mixture of dangerous errors fuperltru6ted thereupon,,
that we, who are convinced of thofe errors, dare not
for the wTorld, embrace the communion of that church,
fo long as the joining in the profeffion and practice of
thofe errors, are made neceflary terms of that com-
munion.
But I expect that you mould fay, that by the faith
embraced by the church of England (as you exprefs
it in your letter) you meant the thirty-nine articles,.
by which the church of England is diftinguifhed from
the church of Rome : And you would have me give
you a lift either of churches or men, that have always
believed according to that faith of the church of Eng-
land.
But, Madam, tho' this demand or requefr. might
juftly enough be made by us to thofe of the popifh,
communion, with reference to the articles of the coun-
cil of Trent, as they are fummed up in pope Pius's
new creed, where the belief of the Trent-articles
are made as neceflary to falvation, as the belief of
the articles of the old creed ; yet it is, by no means,
a fair demand of the papifts to us proteftants, with
reference to our thirty-nine articles ; and my rea-
fon is this, becaufe we do not look upon all our thirty-
nine articles to be articles of faith, in the fenfe that
you look upon the definitions of the council of Trent
to be articles of faith.
We believe fome of our articles to be necefTary
points of faith 5 and thefe are common to us with
other
APPENDIX. 297
other churches. We believe all of our articles to be
ufeful truths, but feveral of them are negative ones,
being levelled againft the corruptions and innovations
of the church of Rome, and other prevailing errors
of the times they were made in. Thefe now, are
not ftri&ly and properly parts of our faith, but
rather needful guards and fecurities of our church
againft the dangerous miftakes in matters of religion
that were then, and are now, too prevalent in the
world.
This very thing, that I have now reprefented,
may fatisfy you fully of the unreafonablenefs of your
demand, in the fenfe that I believe you meant it in.
You would have us fhew you a fucceffion of men,
that have always made the thirty-nine articles of the
church of England the ftandard of their faith ; or that
have, In all points, held as the church of England
doth in her thirty- nine articles. Why, Madam,
would you have had doctrines condemned and cau-
tioned againft, before there were any people in the
world held thofe doctrines ? Would you have had
primitive fathers and councils to have made exprefs
articles and declarations againfl the pope's fupremacy?
For inftance, againft the infallibility of general coun-
cils, againfl tranfubilantiation, againft the half-corn-
munion, and the like, when there were no fuch opi-
nions or practices heard of in the world. It was the
corruptions and innovations in the doctrines of chri-
flianity, introduced of latter times, and chiefly by the
church of Rome, that gave occafion to thofe articles
and declarations of our church; but fure you cannot;
expect that any church, or that any man, mould have
declared againft fuch errors in the church, before
they were in being.
Q 5 Let
29B APPEND! X.
Let us fuppofe, for inftance, the fecond council of
Nice, which eftablifhed image-worfhip, fhbuld, at the
fame time, have condemned Mahometanifm, which
not long before, had begun to appear in the world ;
let us fuppoie likewife a Turk fhould now challenge,
you to give a catalogue of but one church; or, if
that be too much, of but one man in an age, that,,
from ChrifPs time till the fecond council of Nice, al-
ways profefied the fame faith, as to Adahomet's being
a falfe prophet, that that council embraced ; nay, and
fhould promife you> that if you could give him fuch
a catalogue, he- would, not be a Mahometan: I afk
you, What you would fay to this Turkifh argument r.
Is it a good argument,, or is it not? Doth it over*
throw the eftablifhed doctrine of the council of Nice,
or no ? I believe you. will fay,, that the Turk makes .a>
■very unreafonable demand (confidering that Mahomet
appeared not till long after Chrift's time) and that his.
argument is nothing to the purpofe* And yet I allure
you. Madam, this is juft the very fame argument that
your friend hath put in. your mouth for the over-
throwing of the eftablifhed doctrines of the church o£
England, in her thirty-nine articles.
This may be fufticient to let you fee how unreafon-
able your demand is-; but I will fay this further, by-
way of direct anfwer to i% viz. Thafe, by what we
can gather from the fcriptures, and from, the fenfe ofi
the primitive church, declared by the fathers and coun-
cils, we think we have reafon to^believe, that the an-
cient churches of Chrift would have joined- in com-
rn union with- the church of England upon fuch princi-
ples and doctrines as are now eftablifhed in the thirty-
nine articles ;-. and that irt thofe points, that are now
controverted between us and the church of Rome^
APPENDIX. 299
if they had then been ftarted, they would have been
on our fide, and not have fided with the Romanifts.
And this we are fo confident of, that we will, at
any time, refer the points in difference between us to
be tried by the holy fcriptures, and by the fenfe of the
primitive church, fo far as we have any notices of it
by fathers or councils.
And now, Madam, you have my fenfe of your pa-
per, I have this to beg of you, That, if any of your
friends think fit to reply, he would not catch at any
fingle pafTage or expreffion in this my anfwer ; and
from thence take occafion to afk me I know not how
many fophiftical queftions, which only tend to con-
found you, and to create me trouble ; but that he
would deal like a man of learning, and piety, and in-
genuity, and anfwer my arguments, or reply to my
anfwers one by one, plainly and honeftly, fo as may
contribute moft to your difcovery of truth. This
way, I am fure, if you be fmcere, is mod for your
benefit. Thus, Madam5 praying God to direct you,
I reft, &c. 4 -
4»
300 APPENDIX,
An Answer /(? feme Qjj e s t i o n s pro-
pofed by a Roman- catholic.
(Question I.
AT a man^ wilfully dying a Roman-catholic^ be
faved f
Answer. (
What the propofer means by wilfully dying a Ro-
man-catholic, I know not. In our language, this
now [wilfully] hath commonly an ill fenfe ; and we
feldom ufe it, but with refpect to a man that obftinate-
ly follows his own will, againfl the befr. reafon and
advice. Now, if this be his fenfe of wilfully dying a
Roman-catholic, he muft expeel: a harder anfwer to
his queflion, than I am now willing to give : In the
mean time, till he hath explained himfelf, this is my
general anfwer, viz,
A man, dying a Roman-catholic, may, or may
not be faved, according; as his circumftances, in this
world, render his errors more or lefs excufable.
We hold the errors of popery to be, in themfelves?
dangerous ; and therefore we tell every one, that it
concerns them, as they love their fouls, to have a care
of them 5 but yet we do not fay that all papifts are
damn'd : As neither do the more moderate Roman-
catholics fay that all protectants are.
But what is the defign of putting this queftion ?
and at the head of all the reft ? The propofer knows
well enough, that, whether we can anfwer it or no,
©r whatever the anfwer be that is given to it, it makes
nothing;
APPENDIX. 5or
nothing at all to the caufe depending between us and
them. But, I fuppofe, he fanfied he fhould make
fome advantage of the conceflions he prefumed we
fhould make, for the eafier gaining the perfon, for
whofe fake thefe queftions were propofed.
Taking it for granted that we would readily allow,
that a papift may be faved in his religion ; and withal,,
telling the perfon, that the catholics do not allow fo
much to a proteftant, dying in the proteftant religion :
He thought, by this artifice, to perfuade him or her3
that therefore their church or religion jnuft undoubted-
ly be fafer than ours.
But if this was his defign, he fhews that he had a
very mean opinion of the understanding of the perfon
he dealt with ; for, can any one, of ordinary fenfe,
be perfuaded, that popery is ever the better for our
charitable opinion of fome papifts ? Or that proteftan-
cy is ever the worfe, for their uncharitably damning
all thofe that are not of the popifh communion.
If the caufe that is in difpute, was at all affec~ted
by what is thus pronounced by either party upon each
other ; for my part, I mould think that the advantage
would be much on the fide of the prcteftants : For
fure, any reafonable man (if he had his church to
chufe, and, fuppofing that all other points in differ-
ence were laid afide) fhould rather join with that fo-
ciety of chriftians, which allow' d that chriftians of
other communions might be faved as well as they ;
than with that fociety that confined falvation only to
their own party, and damn'd all the reft of the chri-
ftian world.
Sure I am, when all things are confidered, it will
appear, that charity is infinitely more a certain note
of a true church, tho' without the pretence of infalli-
bility 5
■302 A P P E N D I X.
bility; than a pretence to infallibility, without catho-
lic charity : And yet thofe that make notes of the
true church in the Roman communion, never fail to
put in one, but ufually leave out the other.
Question II.
Was not thefociety of chriftians ^ united In faith a?id
communion ivith the bijhop of Rome^ once the true ca-
tholic church ?
Answer.
If by the fociety of chriftians, united in faith and
worfhip with the bifhop of Rome, be meant only
thofe chriftians that were under his jurifdi&ion, and
that owned him for their bifhop, or for their head ;
then we fay, that fociety of chriftians, thus united
with the bifhop of Rome, was never the true catho-
lic church, but only one part of it.
If by the fociety of chriftians here fpoken of, he
meant all thofe churches all the world over ; that, as
they had the fame faith, fo were once united in one
communion with the bifhop of Rome (as, for any
thing I know, before the great divifions of Chriften-
dom, there might be fuch a time) I fay, if this be the
meaning of the queftion, then I anfwer, That all thefe
churches taken together, thus united in faith and wor-
fhip, were the true catholic church. But then, we
fay, that none of thefe churches was more the catho-
lic church than the reft -, but they were all equally
parts of the catholic church, and they were no more
united with the bifhop of Rome, than the bifhop of
Rome was with their bifhops. My meaning is, while
things thus happily flood, they were all united toge-
ther under their feveral bifhops, in the common bonds
of faith, and charity, and communion, as all chri-
ftian churches ought to be, and as it is much to ba
defired
APPENDIX. 303
defired they were. But the bifhop of Rome had no
more authority over them, than they had over him 5
they were all lifter-churches, but own'd no head, no
univerfal bifhop over them, but Chrift Jefus j and, in
cafe of a rupture (as, God knows, a great one did
happen, and ftill continues, and which, not without
caufe, we lay chiefly at the doors of the church of
Rome, upon account of their groundlefs ufurpations
in matters of government, and innovations in matters
of faith 5) I fay, in cafe of a rupture, the church of
Rome was as much obliged to re-unite itfelf with thole
other churches, fuppofmg the rupture or fchifm was
occafion'd by her, as any of thofe other churches were
obliged to re-unite themfelves with the church of
Rome, fuppofing the fchifm or the breach began thro'
their fault.
QUESTION III.
In what century did Jhe commit the firjr err or y and
what v'ifible communion did then oppofe her P
Answer*
1. If it doth appear de fhclo, that the church of
Rome hath erred, and doth yet continue fo to do, it
is not at all material, whether we can affign the pre-
cife time or no, when fhe did commit the frft error
(as the gentleman phrafeth it) or who firft oppofed
her in her errors-.
Errors are not the lefs errors for having an nndrf-
cernable beginning, and not being fuddenly taken no-
tice of ; no more than the tares in the field of corn
that our Saviour fpeaksof, were the lefs tares for being
fbwn in the night, by no- body knows who, white the
hufband-men flept*
But, I pray,, let thefe gentlemen, who call upon
us to fliew the century when the errors of their church
begu%
304. A P P E N D I X.
begun, and who, at that time, oppofed them ; or
elfe they muft conclude, that the church of Rome
hath not erred at all ; I fay, let them try this argu-
ment of theirs upon a man that is troubled with the
yellow jaundice, and perfuade fuch a man, if they
can, or any one that fees him, that, if he cannot af-
fign the precife day of the week when his diltemper
firft began, and {hew that fomebody at that time gave
him notice of it, and bid him have a care of himfelf ;
I fay, that if he cannot fhew this, he may certainly
conclude, he hath not the yellow jaundice, but is a
perfect found man ; notwithftanding that his great
weaknefs and decay of fpirits, and the yellownefs of
his eyes and face, do fufficientiy difcover to himfelf,
and all that fee him, what a condition he is in.
2. But Secondly, Tho' it be not needful, for the
{hewing that the church of Rome hath erred, to give
an account of the beginnings, and other circumftan-
ces of her errors ; yet we are not fo much in the
dark about thefe matters, but that we are able to give
competent fatisfa£tion to any indifferent enquirer,
both as to the rife, and as to the progrefs of mofr. of
the popiih errors j by what degree they crept into the
church ; and who were the great promoters of them ;
and who were againft them. And this hath been fe-
veral times done by proteftant writers, in their dif-
courfes, as there hath been occafion.
(Question IV.
Was there ahvays a true church upon earth ?
Answer.
We do believe there always was, and always will
be a true church upon earth \ but we do believe that
it never was confined to the church of Rome : And
we believe like wife that, tho' the church of Rome
7 was
APPENDIX. 305
was not in being, nor never had been, there would
be ftill, and would always have been, a true church
of Chrift upon earth. -
(Question V.
By what legal authority zvas the church of Rome con-
derailed to be heretical ?
Answer.
I fuppofe this queftion is tacked to the former, to
make a fort of argument, that the church of Rome
is the only true church ; for the propofer thought that,
if we did allow that there always was a true church
upon earth, v/e muft, of neceffity, grant, that the
church of Rome muft be that church, unlefs we can
prove that fhe .hath been condemned to be heretical
by fome legal authority ; that is (I fuppofe he means)
by fome general council : But this fophiftry is too ap-
parent, not to be eafily feen through.
For, firft, had the church of Rome continued ne-
ver fo orthodox, from the foundation of it to this day ;
yec we fhould never have own'd that me was the true
church, in their fenfe \ that is, the one holy catholic
church which we profefs to believe in the creed. For
ftill, we fhould only have owned her as a part of the
catholic church, and we fhould have believed other
churches to have been as truly parts of it as fhe ; on-
ly with this difference, that if it appeared that fhe
had preferved the faith and worfnip of Chrift more
pure among her members, than other churches had
done among theirs, we fhould have owned her as a
founder church, and her communion to be fafer than
that of the reft. But then, v/e muft give the fame
preference to any other church againft her, when it
doth appear (as we think it doth) that they do better
conform
5oS APPENDIX.
conform to Chrifi's rule in faith and worfhip than fhe
doth.
But fecondly, Why may we not be able to fatisfy
ourfelves, that the church of Rome is not the true
church, unlefs we can {hew by what legal authority
ihe was condemned to be heretical ? Can nothing for-
feit a title to the being the true church but only here-
fy ? Suppofing the church of Rome was not guilty of
herefy, but only of fchifm (as, of all the churches in
the world, we think we have reafon to charge her
with that crime in an efpecial manner:) Is not that
fufficient to fatisfy us that fhe is not the only true
church ?
Thirdly, Admitting the church of Rome muft be
the true church, unlefs fhe be heretical (which yet we
can never believe) but admitting this, what reafon is
there that we mould be put to prove, that fhe has
been condemned to be heretical by fome legal autho-
rity ? May not the church of Rome be guilty of he-
refy, tho' fhe was never condemned to be heretical ?
By the fame reafon that you will deny this, I will de-
ny any man to be a felon (tho' I be never fo fure he
broke up my houfe and ftole my goods) till I fee him
condemned to be hanged. That which makes a man
or a church heretical, is the maintaining openly fuch
doctrines as are contrary to the faith of ChrUl ; but
the fentence of authority againft fuch a man, or fuch
a church, doth only declare them heretical, but doth
not make them fo. So that the church of Rome, if
fhe maintains fuch doctrines, may be guilty of herefy,
tho' fhe was never condemned to be heretical.
And further, I fhould be glad to know by what le-
gal authority the proteftant church of England is con-
demned to be heretical : And yet the Roman-catho-
lics
APPENDIX. 307
lies make no fcruple to beftow the name of heretics
very liberally upon us. But let then! not name the
council of Trent, left they hear more about it than
they clefire.
But it may be the author's defign in propofing this
queftion was only this : He would have us fhew by
what legal authority the church of Rome was con-
demned to be heretical, otherwife he thought we could
not juftify our reparation from that church.
Indeed, as things have ftocd fince the errors and
corruptions of the church of Rome have begun to pre-
vail in thefe wefrem parts, and as they do yet ftand,
it is impoffible, had the church of Rome been never
fo heretical, to have her condemned as fuch by any
general council truly fo called ; becaufe the affairs of
Chriftendom have of a long time been, and are now
in fuch a pofture, that fuch a council cannot be con-
vened as is truly free and general. All the eaftern
and the fouthern churches, which made four of the
five patriarchates, are, by their deplorable circum-
ftances, cut off from all poiTibility of giving their votes
in fuch a general aflembly. And as for the churches
in thefe weftern parts of the world, if the pope be to
call a council of them (as we can expect at prefent no
other than fuch) we know what we have to truft to,
by an experiment that was made of this kind in the
laft (pretended to be general) council of Trent :
Which indeed was fo far from being general, that it
was not a full weftern council, the major part of them
there aflembled being wholly the pope's creatures,
and carrying all his points to his mind, notwithstand-
ing the remonftrances of feverai fovereign princes to
the contrary. But tho' we cannot fay that the Ro-
man church hath been condemned by any general
council
308 APPENDIX.
council as heretical, for her innovations, yet we can
fay, that fhe doth now hold fome doctrines contrary
to the definitions of former general councils acknow-
ledged to be fo ; we can fay, and prove, that fhe
teacheth doctrines contrary to the fenfe of the primi-
tive fathers, and of fome of her own popes ; and we
do fay and believe, that if popery, as it is now efla-
blifhed by the council of Trent, had been brought
into debate at any of the firft. four general councils, it
would have been condemned as much as we now con-
demn it.
(Question VI.
Had the firji protejiant reformers the infallible affift-
ance of the Holy Ghojl in the reforming the church ?
Answer.
There was no need of any perfonal infallibility to
be beftowed upon the full reformers, for they pre-
tended not to preach a new gofpel to the world, or to
found new churches as the apoftles did ; all that they
pretended to was, to preach the fame gofpel that
Chrift and his apoflles delivered to the world, and
which, by an infallible fpirit, was committed to writ-
ing for the benefit of after- ages, and to refcue that
gofpel from thole corruptions and errors which time
and ignorance had mingled with it : This, I fay, was
their work. And if they were allured themfelves,
and gave fufficient evidence to thofe they preached to,
from the holy fcriptures, and the writings of the pri-
mitive fathers, that they did this, they needed no pri-
vate infallibility for the carrying on that defign. A
wife man will certainly give more credit to a perfon
in what he offers about religion, who proves the do-
ctrine by fcripture and antiquity, than to any men or
church that pretends to infallibility, and yet are de-
stitute
APPENDIX. 3o9
ftitute of thefe two fupporters, as to what they pro-
pofe to our belief.
(Question VII.
Had the church of England that ajfljlance f If they
had, to /hew it : If not j How do they know they are
rightly informed ?
Answer*.
I have in part told you ; but I will tell you further
what aiiiftance the fathers of the church of England
had in her reformation : They had the fcriptures on
their fide: They had the primitive fathers and the
councils on their fide : They had the higheft autho-
rity both ecclefiaftical and civil on their fide : And
they had the bleffing of God to go along with their
endeavours. This affiftance the church of England
had in her reformation, and no other did fhe ever pre-
tend to j and by thofe very means and no other,
doth fhe pretend to know that fhe is rightly informed.
She knows fhe cannot be an heretical church, becaufe
fhe owns all thofe fummaries of faith, which chri-
ftians all the world over were baptized into. Or, if
that be not enough, fhe owns all the holy fcriptures,
which fhe makes the rule of her faith ; and laftly,
fhe owns the four firft general councils, which one of
the popes did declare he received, and embraced, as
he did the four gofpels; and in the laft of which
councils it is decreed, that nothing fhould ever be
added to that creed, or that faith, that was pubhfhed
at the council of Nice.
She knows fhe is not a fchifmatical church, be-
caufe fhe is willing and defirous to hold communion
with all the churches in the world, upon catholic
terms, fuch terms as the antient churches obferved a-
mong themfelves. And if fome churches now will
not
3io APPENDIX.
not admit her to their communion, but will impofe
terms which the antient churches never knew, fhe is
forry for this, but cannot help it, the fault lies at
their doors, not at hers. And as to the points in dif-
pute between her and the church of Rome, fhe hath
never declined any fair trial which of the churches
hath right and truth on their fide ; let but the church
of Rome wave her groundlefs unaccountable infallibili-
ty, which they have neither fcripture, nor any gene-
ral council to give countenance to, and put the trial
of the controverfy between them upon holy fcripture,
as it is interpreted by the primitive fathers, and fhe
will at any time join ifuie with her. This now being
the conceffion of the church of England, who can
doubt of the fincerity of her reformation, or what
fhould hinder to make her abundantly certain that (he
is a true church, tho' fhe does not pretend to be in-
fallible ?
(Question VIII.
JVhai way the church of England hath to determine
controverjies betivixt her and the diffenters befides the pe-
nal laws f
Answer.
The fame way we have to determine controversies
betwixt us and the papifts, if the penal laws againft
them were taken away ; of which I have already given
an account.
(Question IX.
Give me a demonjlration that the church of England
is the church ; fuch a one, as no other heretic can make
life of for his feci.
Answer.
For God's fake, Sir, have a care how you talk cf
giving demonstrations., for I am fare your caufe will
8 not
APPENDIX. 311
not bear it. Do but you give me a demonftration
that St. Peter was by Chrift's appointment made head
of the apoftles, or that the bifhop of Rome doth fuc-
ceed St. Peter in that headfhip, and I will turn Ro-
man-catholic immediately. Nay, which is lefs, do
but give me a demonftration that he is a lawful ca-
nonical pope who now pofTefTes St. Peter's chair, or
that there has been fuch a pope for many years ; or
that any man whom you fhall name is a true bifhop,
according to your own laws and canons ; or that any
prieft you fhall pitch upon is a true pried j or that
you have in any church of your communion, the true
facraments adminiftred among you, and I do promife
again, upon that condition, to be of your commu-
nion. But you know as well as I, that I promife no-
thing in faying this ; for, according to the nature of
the thing, and proceedings upon the laws of your
church, it is impoflible that any of thefe things mould
be demonftrated. And why therefore will you put
me to give a demonftration that the church of Eng-
land is the church ; and fuch a demonftration too, as
no other heretic can make ufe of for his feci: ? But
fomething I will fay in anfwer to your demand.
And firft of all, you do not put it rightly. You
would have me give you a demonftration, that the
church of England is the true church. Why, Sir, the
church of England never pretended to be the church
in oppofition to all other churches ; tho' that was the
pretence of the Donatifts of old, and that is the pre-
tence of your church now, and therefore you are apt
to think that other churches do the fame. All that
we pretend to is, that we are a found church, a true
part of the catholic church s and that our communion
is
3 1-2 APPENDIX.
is much fafer than yours : And this we will join ifTue
with you upon at any time.
Well, but you will fay, inftead of a demonftratlon,
give me a proof that the church of England is a true
church ; and withal, fuch a proof, as no other here-
tic can make ufe of for his feet. This is, indeed,
the meaning of your queftion ; I will charitably fup-
pofe it is your meaning, beCaufe it is the bed mean-
ing : And I thus anfwer to it. As for proof that the
church of England is a true, found part of the catho-
lic church, I have, in good part, given it already:
And I repeat it again, and add this, That the church
of England retains the catholic faith, according to all
the ancient creeds ; fhe can be convicted of no error
condemned by the ancient churches ; fhe owns all the
ancient canon of fcripture ; me hath the fame facra-
rrients, and the fame priefthood that the ancient church
had ; and if you can deny fuch a church as this to be
a found part of the catholic, I pray try your fkill in
making out your denial.
This is the anfwer to the former part of your que-
ftion. But then, you defire further .fuch a proof of
the church of England being a true found church, as
no other heretics can make ufe of for their feci:. Why,
-to this I alfo anfwer, That if any of thofe whom, you
call heretics, can really and truly fay the fame things
for their church that we do fay for ours, we fhall never
think them heretics, whatever you may account them;
fcut {hall always efteem them true members of the
catholic church : But then, we always make a differ-
ence between thofe who only pretend to fcripture and
primitive records for their doctrines, and thofe who
are able to make thofe pretences good. I grant, that
leveral fects do plead both thofe things as well as we ;
but
APPENDIX. Si3
but their plea is to be examined, before it be allowed.
If their way be agreeable to the faith once deliver'd to
the faints, it is to be approved -, if not, it is to be re-
proved. And what we fay as to them, we fay as to.
you; for you have no other proof in the world, that
you are fo much as a true part of the church of Chriftv
but that you hold the fame faith, and ufe the fame
worm i p., that was taught by Chrift and his apoiiies :
And fo far as you retain that faith and >/orfhip, we
allow you fo far to be a true church ; but wherein fo-
ever you depart from it, fo far it is the duty of every
church to depart from you. As for the privilege of
infallibility, which you only, of all other chriftians
in the world, do aflume to yourfelves, and from hence
draw an argument to unwary people, that, _becaufe
no body pretends to it but yourfelves, therefore it muft
certainly be lodged in your church ; it is To wholly
devoid of all proof, nay, of all colour of proof, ei-
ther from fcripture, or councils^ or ancient fathers ;
and, in truth, looks foiike the bills that are paired
by empirics, upon every wall, for the curing all dif-
eafes , and refolving all tjue-fftoris, that it feems not
ivorth -the-whrle to fpend time in expofmg it»
Q, U E S T I O N X.
Shew me ) ever before the reign of king Henry the
gighih^ any communion or fociety^ that held ally and yiq
&ther tenets^ than the church of England doth hold f
A N S W E R.
Commend me to this for a fpecial demand— But as
I have been fo long upon the other questions, that I
am quite tired, I mall make bold to give this, and the
other that follow, va very quick difpaich.
Vol. VII. P The
3.i4 APPENDIX.
The anfwer I give to this is, by making another
demand, which is every whit as good and as proper
as this. Shew me, before the time of the council of
Trent, any communion or fociety, nay, (which is
more than is put in the demand) fhew me but any
one man, who held all, and no other tenets than the
church of Rome iince that council, doth hold ; I fay,
fhew me but this, and I promife I will recant. And
this, I think, is a little more than is put in the de-
mand : but it is an eafy thing to afk queftions, or
make demands.
(Question XL
May not a popijh king be the fupream head of the
ihurch of England, in fpiritual matters P
Answer.
What is defigned by this queftion, I know not %
but I freely give a fair anfwer to it. Every fovereign
prince, whether popifh or proteftant, is, by the law
of nature, and the law of God, in his own domini-
ons, fupream head of the church, in that fenfe of
headfhip which the church of England afcribes to the
king, namely, that, under Chrift, he is fupream go-
vernor of ail perfons, and in all caufes, as well eccle-
fiaftical as civil.
(Question XII.
What certain rule hath the church of England for
'the true interpretation of the fcripture ?
A N S W E R.
I expected this queftion long before, for I hardly
ever faw any popilh queries, but this was one of them.
And,
APPENDIX. 315
And, in anfwer to it, I tell the propofer what he may
meet with over and over again, both in the writings
of the fathers, and in the proteftant writers ; and that
is, that our rule of interpreting is the fame rule that
all the world hath (except thofe who are pofTefFed
with infallibility) viz. to confider the texts of fcrip-
ture very well, and how they relate to wrhat goes be-
fore, and what follows after, and to compare one text
of fcripture with another, efpecially the obfcure texts .
with the plainer ; and to examine likewife what was
the fenfe of the beft antient chriftians about any text
we confult : (For, whatever the propofer thinks, we
pay as great a deference to the antient writers of the
church, as any of them do, and, perhaps, a great
deal more.)
This is the rule by which the church of England
interprets the fcripture ; and I defire any of the church
of Rome to fhew a better. If they will fay that our rule
is not a certain rule ; I anfwer, it is as certain as the
thing will bear, and is certain enough for all the purpofes
either of chriftian life, or of neceflary chriftian truths,
For, as for thofe truths of fcripture which are not ne-
ceflary, we may be fecurely ignorant of them : So
that we have certainly all the means of being rightly
informed that they have, about the fenfe of fcripture,
except one thing, and that is, the pretended infallibi-
lity of their church ; and yet this one thing, among
all confidering men, mull: go for nothing. For this
I dare be bold to fay, that the church of Rome hath
never yet, by virtue of her infallibility, made any
one fingle text of fcripture clearer or plainer than it was
before infallibility was pretended to. This I infiffc
upon, and would be glad to have one inftance to con-
fute what I fav ; for I love infallibility, if I could tell
P 2 where
2i6 APPENDIX.
where to find it. I grant, the learned men of
the church of Rome have done confiderable fervice
towards the explaining of the bible : but that fervice
they have done, is not owing to the infallibility of their
church, but to their own honeft pains, induftry, and
frudy.
Thus I have gone over the gentleman's twelve que-
ries : I beg his pardon that I have dwelt lb long upon
them. He has put me to fome trouble which I did
not expert ; I hope my turn comes next to propofe
fome queftions to him. If he defires it, I will get
them ready for him 5 and if he will anfwer as clearly
and plainly, as I have done, I fhall defire to be tetter
acquainted with him.
An
APPENDIX. 317
«=*?
An anfwer to forne popifh paper, put into the
. hands of one of his parijhioners. Sent as an
antidote to the gentleman zvho had received it.
I CANNOT but fay, that whoever wrote this
paper, looked upon the perfon he gave it to as a
very {hallow man, and eafy to be impofed upon ;
otherwife he would have been afhamed, for his own
credit- fake, to have let fuch fophiftries pafs under his
hand, as are here offered. For this is the bottom of
his argument :
Becaufe the church of Ro?ne, in former times , was one
cf thofe churches that had a lawful fuccejf on from the
apofiles ; therefore that church, if it have not f nee erred,
isjiill the true church.
The trick that he would here put upon the reader^
lies in thefe lad words, is flill the true church. If
he had laid, a true church, he knows we would readily
have agreed to his proportion. But that was not at
all to his purpofe, becaufe it would not ferve his caufe;
for there have always been, and yet are, feveral true
churches in the world, befides the Roman. But now
drawing his conclufion thus, that the church of Rome
is the true church, he would have it believed, that (he
is the true church, in oppofition to all other churches
and communions. In a word, that the Roman is the
one catholic-church of Chrift, out of which falvation
cannot be had. This, I fay, muft be his meaning,
if he would make any profelytes by this argument.
P 3 But
\i$ APPENDIX.
But now taking this to be his meaning, what a pal-
pable fhame is here put upon his reader. The church
tjf Rome had a lawful fucceiiion from the apoftles,
therefore it is flill the only true catholic church.
Whereas, for all its fucceiiion from the apoflles, it could
be no more than a part of the catholic church, which
was all that the other apoflolical churches, as Jerufa-
lem, and Antioch, he. pretended to claim from that
fucceiiion : not to be each of them the only true ca-
tholic church. So that when he favs the church of
Rome is flill the true church, he puts upon us in his
conclufion, things that were not in his premifes.
Could he prove to us, that the church of Rome was
ever the true church, in the fenfe he intends it, viz.
The one univerfal church of Chrifl, out of which
is no falvation, we might allow me is flill fo. But
this, we know, he can never prove 5 and we believe
he is fo wife, as not to offer at it.
What I have now faid, is a full anfvver to all the ar-
gument that is in the paper, tho' we fhould meddle no
further with it. For, whether we can, or cannot an-
iwer what follows, I am fure his reafon, by which he
would perfuade you to become a convert to their
church, is fhewed to be no reafon, becaufe it proceeds
upon this falfe fuppofition, that the church of Rome
was once the catholic church, which it never was :
But now being, as he thinks, fecure of that; and fup-
pofing that you will readily grant, that if the church
of Rome hath never erred, it is flill the catholic church,
he proceeds to fhew that the church of Rome hath ne-
ver erred. And he ufeth an admirable argument for it.
No church, fays he, can err but in three points, viz.
fchifm, herefy, or apoflacy. Which, methinks, is
jufl fuch a propofition as this; No man can be fick*
APPENDIX. 319
unlefs he contract his difeafe by "forfeiting, by catch-
ing cold, or by fome contagion. For can any man,
in good earneft, believe, that no church can err, un •
lefs at the fame time me be guilty either of herefy,
or fchifm, or apoftacy ? Pray what fhall we think of
the churches of Afia in pope Victor's time, who dif-
fered from the weftern churches about the celebra-
tion of eafter ? And where the difference ran fo high,
that the pope proceeded to excommunicate them upon
that account ? What mall we think of the African
churches in St. Cvprian's time, who were for re-bap-
tizing of heretics againfl the fenfe of the Roman
church ? Will this gentleman fay, that they were
guilty either of herefy, or fchifm, or apoftacy ? I doubt
not, but he will fay they erred ; but I believe he would
be loth to charge them with any of thefe three crimes;
becaufe, if he doth, he will make fome of the beft
men in thofe ages, and who are now owned as faints
by the church of Rome, to be either heretics, or fchif*
matics, or apoftates.
But fuppofe we mould tell him, that the church of
Rome hath erred fome of thofe three ways which he
affigns to be the only inftances in which a church can.
err ; I am fure he will fooner tax us for our liberty
of cenfuring, than be able to anfwer cur arguments,
Suppofe we fay, that the church of Rome is guilty
of fchifm, and that nctorioufly, I do not know what
he will anfwer to it 5 for fchifm is nothing elfe but
a breach of catholic-communion, and where there is
any fuch breach, the fchifm lies at their doors who
are the caufes of it. This is acknowledged by all
who know any thing of divinity. But now, in this
fad divided flate of Chriftendom, where there are fo
many fchifms and feparations, who are fo much to be
P 4 blamed
320 APPENDIX.
blamed as the church of Rome ? who being only up*
on the fame level with other churches, and fitter to
them, has by an unheard-of ufurpation made herfelf
mother and miftrefs of all other churches, and excluded
all chriiiians who will not own her as fuch out of her
communion. If this be not fchifm; if this be not a
breach of catholic-communion, I know not what is.
As for the fecond point, wherein he fays a church is
capable of erring, viz. Herefy ; tho' they do liberally
upon all occafions impute that crime to us, and fcru-
j>\e not to call us damnable heretics, yet if it mould
come to a fair trial, we mail be able to make it ap-
pear ? that they much rather deferve that name, even
according to the definition of herefy that is given by
them-fel-ves. If herefy be an error in faith obftinately
maintained, as I think that is the common definition
that paiTeth among them, I do not doubt but we can
{hew a great many fuch errors fo maintained in their
church. If they add to this definition fuch errors as
are maintained againft the (enk of the church, why,
upon thefe terms we will join hTue with them, and
are ready to prove, that the prefent church of Rome
doth maintain errors againft the fenfe of the fcriptures,
and the primitive apoftolic churches, which in all rea-
fon ought to be the meafure and ftandard by which the
truth of the doctrines is to be tried. And laftly, if it
be herefy to innovate in the chriftian faith, and to make
new articles of religion neceffary to faivation, which
Chrift and his apofties never thought of, (as for my
part I think this as truly herefy, as any other thing
whatfoever) in this refpecl: we do not doubt to fay,
that the church of Rome is the moft heretical church
in the world ; becaufe, whereas all other chriflian
churches that we know of, are contented with the an-
tient
APPENDIX, 321
tlent creeds, fhe hath added to the creed as many more
-articles, and made the belief of thofe new" ones which
fhe had added, as neceffary to falvation, as the belief
of the antient ones.
And then as to the third inftance he gives of the
church's error, viz. by the way of apoftacy, this we
are unwilling to charge the church of Rome with*
for we could not call her by the name of a church, if
we believed me was guilty of it. Apoftacy, (as that
word is commonly ufed) is a departure from the chri-
ilian faith. But we own the church of Rome doth
ftill hold the foundation of faith, tho' upon that foun-
dation me has built many errors. But if by apoftacy,
be meant a departure from any of Chrift's doclrines,
that are not abfolutely necefTary to falvation ; in this
fenfe we do not doubt but the prefent church of Rome
hath apoftatized : that is to fay, fhe doth in feveral in-
ftances teach quite otherwife than Chrift and his apo-
ftles taught.
The gentleman having told you, that the church
cannot err but in thefe three points, puts thefe ques-
tions to you, i When, where, and how the church.
* erred ? Who found out the error I What affembly,
' and by whofe power gathered together? ' Tho' he puts
all thefe queftions concerning the church in general,
yet we fuppofe he hereby means all along the church
of "Rome, otherwife he fpeaks nothing to the purpofe.
Now it is a fumVient anfwer to fay, that if we can
prove that the church of Rome hath actually erred, it
is not a farthing matter whether we give an anfwer to
thefe queftions or no; becaufe they are altogether im-
pertinent. They are juft as much to the purpofe as,
if a man who is really out of order in point of health,
or lies languiihing under a diftemper, Ihould endea-
P 5 vous
322 APPENDIX.
vour to perfuade his friends, or thofe that ftand by
him, that he is in perfect health, and ails nothing,
by this argument ; < If I be fick, it concerns you to
* fhew me when, and where, and how I got this fick-
* nefs : who firft found it out : what confutations
c of phyficians difcovered it -, and if it was a confult
* of phyficians, pray by whofe order were they fent
* for ? ' Would not this be a ridiculous argument to
the by-ftanders ? And yetjuft fuch is this argument,
by which this gentleman would perfuade you that his
church was never difeafed with any error.
It is fufficient to fatisfy any indifferent perfon, that the
church of Rome has been guilty of great errors, when
it is vifible and apparent that fhe has departed from the
holy fcriptures, both in doctrine and practice, in abun-
dance of inftances, tho' it cannot be fhewed you when,
and where, and how that church took up thefe errors,
or who firft found them out ; tho' even as to thefe
things we are not fo at a lofs but that we could give a
particular anfwer, if it was fit to enter upon the parti-
culars. We can tell you the particular things wherein
the church of Rome hath departed from the doctrine
of Chrift and his apoftles : And we give you thefe
for inftance, half- communion, honour given to images,
adoration of the hoft, invocation of faints, and fer-
vice in an unknown tongue. Thefe are all matters of
practice, contrary to the tenor of the fcriptures. And as
for doctrines, we can name feveral inftances which they
have made necefTary articles of faith, which have no
countenance from fcripture, but are much againft it ;
as the doctrines about penance, and tranfubftantiation,
and purgatory, and indulgences, and the pope's fu pre-
macy.
2 Wc
APPENDIX. 323
We can tell you likewife when thefe doctrines began
to prevail in the church of Rome, not that they all
fprung up at once, but by degrees, and in feveral ages.
But thofe ages we can name : and we can likewife tell
who chiefly promoted them, and for what end '3 and
who oppofed them.
Laftly, we can likewife give you a reafonable ac-
count of our own reformation here in England, and
fatisfy every indifferent perfon that it is made by jull
and fufficient authority, forafmuch as every national
church hath power and authority in itfelf to reform it-
felf, according to the laws of God, and the princi-
ples and practice of the primitive church, without con-
fulting the pope, or any commifiioned by him. And
this reformation of ours was duly and regularly carried
on, having the concurrence both of the princes and of
all the eftates of the realm, viz. clergy, nobility, and
laity, which is abundantly fufficient to juftify our pro-
ceedings. Tho' yet, had there been none of thefe things.*
fo great and dangerous were the corruptions of the
church of Rome, that even any private man who was
convinced of them, was in duty bound to abilain from
the communion of that church, fo long as fiie impofed
thofe things, as necefTary terms of her communion,
'^dd-*
3*4 APPENDIX
Advice to proteftants of ordinary capacities, bow
to behave tbemfehes when they are tampered
with to change their religion.
iHE firft thing they will ufually tell you is, that
it concerns you infinitely to look that you be
of the true church, for you are damned if you be not*
becaufe there is but one faith, one baptifm, one
church.
To this you mufi anfwer, that you do believe and
profefs that one faith which was delivered by Chrift
and his apoftles, and that you are baptized into that
faith, and confequently you are a member of Chrift's
holy catholic- church.
They will tell you, that you are not a member of
Chrift's catholic-church, becaufe you are not a Ro-
man-catholic.
To this you mult anfwer, that you are a member
of the catholic-church, tho* you be not a member of
the Roman church 5 for the Roman- church is but a
part of the catholic-church.
They will tell you, that the Roman -church hath
all the marks of the catholic- church, and no other
church but that hath.
You may tell them again, that no one particular
church can have all the marks of the catholic ; no
more than a particular county of England, as for in-
stance, Middlefex, can have the marks of being all
England : For the catholic-church doth take into its
notion all the churches of Chrifr, throughout the world j
but
APPENDIX. 325
but the Roman-church, with all thofe particular
churches that join in communion with it, makes but
a fmall part of thofe churches. So that all that can
be gathered from her marks is, that fhe is one part
of the church of Chrifi: ; but fhe wants all thofe marks
that mould either {hew her to be the whole church,
or a found part of the church ; for certainly, among
the marks of a true and found church, this ought to be
put in as one of the principal, that the church which
profefTeth fo to be, fhould, in matters of faith, hold a
conformity with the holy fcriptures and the primitive
writings : But this the church of Rome doth not at
this day.
They will tell you, that the church of Rome is,
in all things, conformable to the holy fcriptures, and
to the primitive church.
You may fafely anfwer them, that, in a great many
things, the church of Rome.hath defined, and praclif-
eth at this day contrary to the fcriptures, or the ufage
of the primitive church : As for inftance, in denying
the cup of the holy communion to the laity 5 in cele-
brating the communion every day, when none of the
company but the prieft doth receive ; in having their
prayers in an unknown tongue ; in a religious ufe of
images in the worfhip of God ; in feveral doclrines which
they have made matters of faith ; as the doctrine of
indulgences, purgatory, (even facraments, tranfubfean-
tiation, invocation of faints, and the like. As to all
thefe things, you may fafely challenge them, that there
is nothing to be fhewn in the holy fcriptures, or in pri-
mitive antiquity, for the belief or practice of them,
but much to be fhewn againft them.
They will afk you, who is to be judge of the mean-
ing of fcripture ? Is every private man to be judge of
that i
326 A P P E N D I X.
that ? At that rate, we fhall have as many faiths as
there are men.
To this you may anfwer, you refufe no judges of
the fenfe of fcripture, fuppofing they be equally in-
different ones j but you think it a little unreafonable
that the church of Rome fhould be a judge of the
fenfe of fcripture in matters wherein (he is a party ;
that you are willing to be concluded by the judgment
of the univerfal church, as to the fenfe of any texts
of fcripture that are in debate between the church of
England and the Roman ; and you will, at any time,
join ifiue with them upon that point, provided you
may have liberty to call in one to your affiftance,
who is ufed to thofe matters. But you may anfwer
further : Every man is a judge of the fenfe of fcrip-
ture, fuppofing it be r'ghtiy translated, in needful mat-
ters ; and as to thofe fcriptures that are not neceffary,
it is no great matter if you do not underftand them.
If they fay, that in necelTary matters the fcriptures
are not fufEciently plain.
Then pray afk them, how it comes about that God
fhould not be able, by the pen-men he made ufe of,
to put his mind plainly into writing, as well as Tully,
Ariftotle, or Virgil, put their minds into writing ? We
can, at this day, underftand the fenfe of thofe authors
as to m©ft of the things they write about ; tho', about
fome paffages, there is a controverfy. And why may
we not as well underftand the fenfe of thofe writings
that were dictated by God almighty ?
When they prefs you to take the fcriptures only in
their interpretation, you muft afk them, why they
would have you believe their interpretation ? I fuppofe
they will anfwer, becaufe their interpretation is the
fenfe of the church, which cannot err.
If
APPENDIX. 327
If you afk them again, how they prove that the
church cannot err ? It is likely they will tell you, that
Chrifl hath promifed to be with the church to the end
of the world ; and if fo, how is it poiiible the church
fhould fall into errors about faith ?
To this you may anfwer, that Chrift hath indeed
promifed that he will be with the apoftles ; and you
are likewife willing to grant, that this promife is to
be extended to all thofe who fucceed the apoftles, to
the end of the world. But what is this to infallibility ?
May not Chrift's Spirit be prefent with chriftian mini-
fters, unlefs, at the fame time, you fuppofe he con-
fers upon them the privilege of infallibility ? But if
this text do indeed make any thing towards infallibilty,
it will rather prove the infallibility of particular mini-
sters, than particular churches. But how, from this
text, the church of Rome, above all others, fhould
derive to herfelf a privilege of being infallible, is be-
yond all reafon, and almofr. beyond all imagination.
They will afk you, where was your church before
Luther ? You may tell them your church was there
to be found where their church never was, viz. m the
holy fcriptures, and the records of the ancient fathers
and councils. If they cavil at this anfwer, you may
anfwer directly to their queftion, in this manner : You
may tell them, That the church of England, before
Luther, was juft. in the fame place where it is now 5
for the proteflants did not pretend to make a new
church, but only to reform the old one. The church
of England, before that time, embraced a great many
errors in matters of religion, and built a great deal of
hay and ftubble upon the foundation. But after that
time, through the mercy of God, fhe was purged
from thofe errors, and threw afide that rubbifh, which*
by
328 APPENDIX.
by time, and too much compliance with the Roman
church, me had contracted ; but ftill fhe was the
fame church fhe had been before, as much as a face
that is wafh'd is the fame that it was before, when it
was dirty.
They will urge you to fhew them any church, be-
fore the reformation, that held, p matters of faith,
as the church of England now doth.
You may tell them, That all the ancient churches
of Chrifl held the fame faith the church of England
now holds -} and if in the articles, and other public
monuments of our church, we have made declarations
againft feveral particulars, fuch as the pope's fupre-
macy, &~c. of which we find no mention in the pri-
mitive church, it is becaufe there were none in thofe
days who held thofe doctrines : But if they had been
ftarted, we do not in the leaft doubt but they would
have been as much condemned by the ancient Ctjmrches3
as they are by the church of England,
A
APPENDIX. 3?,9
^Short Argument againft the doctrine
of infallibility, as it is commonly pretended to
be proved by the Roman- catholics,
O W will you prove to a proteflant, that the
church is infallible ? If you fay, that we have
the church's tradition for it, you fay no more than
this, that the church hath always taught, and doth
now teach, that fhe is infallible. But then the que-
ftion returns : How fhall we know that the church is
not miftaken in what fhe fo teacheth ?
If you fay, that the holy fcripture (which, among
all chriftians, is acknowledged to be of divine autho-
rity) doth teach, That the church, in all ages, is,
and muft be infallible ; we afk again, How can wc
be certain that the fcripture teacheth fo, fince we do
not find that any text of fcripture hath fuch a mean-
ing ?
If in anfwer to this, you tell us, That the church,
to whom only it belongs to interpret fcripture, doth
declare, that this is the fenfe of fcripture, you have
faid no more than you did before ; for all that you fay
is this, That therefore we are to believe that Chriu\>
in fcripture, hath promifed infallibility to his church,
becaufe the church faith he did : So that ftill we muft
take the church's own word for her own infallibility.
If you go another way to work to untie this knot,
and fay that the fcriptures are fufficiently plain in
themfelves to all unprejudiced perfofls about this point
8 of
330 APPENDIX.
of infallibility, efpecially as they are backed with the
conftant tradition of the church in all ages ; we will
acknowledge your anfwer to be reafonable ; but we
will join ifliie with you upon this point, and will put
the uTue upon thefe two queftions :
1. Where can you produce one text of fcripture
that doth either directly, or by confequence, necefla-
rily infer, that the church of Chrift, in all ages,
fhall be fecure from error in all doctrines that fhe
teacheth ?
2. Among feveral texts of fcripture which you
urge for the proof of the church's infallibility, where
can you name fo much as one, that hath always had
the tradition of the church to make that fenfe of it
which is now given by your Roman patrons of in-
fallibility ?
Do but produce one text that maketh for you either
of thefe ways, and you will do fomething towards your
caufe. But in the mean time while your are a doing
this, give me leave to remind you, that in putting the
ifTue of the controverfy upon this point, we have gained
a point or two from you, which when you come to talk
to any purpofe of your doctrine of infallibility, the
proteftants will take notice of, and you muft own.
Firft of all, that all the certainty of that doctrine
refts upon the authority of the fcripture only.
2. That every man, before he can be rationally fa-
tisfied about the truth of that doctrine, muft judge for
himfelf about the fenfe of the fcripture, tho' he is to
take in all the helps for the interpreting of it (the chief
of which is tradition) that he can come by.
And therefore, thirdly, he muft be allowed to ex-
amine all texts and compare them one with another,
making ufe ftill of the bell afliftances he can get for
this
APPENDIX. 331
this purpofe, becaufe otherwife he can make no true
judgment.
And therefore, fourthly, if he cannot fatisfy himfelf,
he mull be allowed to examine all the particular doc-
trines that are taught in the church where he lives,
and to judge of their agreement or difagreement with
the fcripture. For if any one doctrine taught by the
church, be repugnant to the holy fcripture, it is cer-
tain that the church which teacheth that doctrine can-
not be infallible.
I do not fay that it is necefiary for every man, in or-
der to his fatisfaction, to run thro' all this method ;
but I fay, even according to the raoft plaufible me-
thods, that the church of Rome can defend herfelf by,
fhe muft allow of this method : from which I make
three inferences :
1. That the fcriptures, when all is done, are the
rule of our faith.
2. That every one ought to have liberty allowed
him to examine the fcriptures.
3. And that every one, before he can conclude that
the church is infallible, mould be allowed to exa-
mine all the particular doctrines of that church, and
not to run away with a general notion that fuch a
church is infallible, and therefore all fhe teacheth is
true.
END of the Seventh Volums,
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11